When did the Cold War start?

[Laurie]

Originally posted by Boroda
I told it many times before. When I hear two explainations of one historical event, one of them Western, second one - Soviet, both reasonable and without obvious logical faults, I definetly choose Soviet one. I hope you understand why

In case of Berlin airlift the Western POV is that the only reason for blockade was that Evil Soviet Regime (tm) wanted to starve poor Berliners just because it was naturally evil and bloodthirty, in other words - just for fun. I hope you understand that it was not so, otherwise there is no reason to discuss it.

I first learned about "Berlin airlift" from Midnight Target on this board, we have never been told about it at history classes (it doesn't mean that information was censored, you just had to show some interest and look for it). What I heard surprised me. I found an answer a later, reading a book by Soviet intelligence officer, he only mentioned that decision, and then I easily found other facts.

I strongly believe that Cold war was started by the "blue" side, this opinion was developed by reading multiple Soviet and Western books and putting 2+2 together. First, after WWII USSR, unlike Western "allies" was totally devastated and exausted, so, if Stalin didn't kick "allies" out of Europe in 1945 - then the only option for the USSR was peace. Multiple hostile actions and provocations made by "allies" led to Cold war, "iron curtain" and division of Europe into "red" and "blue" sides. BTW, USSR withdrew it's troops from countries like Austria and seriously discussed re-uniting Germany until 1953.

go to a siberian forced labour camp and then talk to me about 'freedom of speech' and how red was so right

[moot]

Don't you see, Laurie? Those gulagers had the most gloriously honorable distinction of making something out of themselves, and even more so, out of their work.

Far from communism, or even socialism, to make you work in vain.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Stoney74
While the end of WWI and the eventual repurcussions of the Versaille Treaty obviously provoked WWII, I think 1918 and its period are too early to describe the true nature of the Cold War.

I would say the Cold War began as soon as Churchill and Stalin began their mutual mistrust, which would have been early in WWII.  The U.S. may have reinforced this situation by the nature and comparison of Lend Lease to the British, and Lend Lease to the Russians.  A further estrangement occured, as alluded to earlier, when Eisenhower agreed to invade North Africa rather than France.  Opening the Western Front early, regardless of how ill-prepared the western Allies were for the effort, would have made a strong statement to the Russians that the British and U.S. wanted to be equal partners in the conflict on the continent, instead of what the Russians perceived as England protecting "colonial" interests in N. Africa and the Med before invading France.  While the facts suggest that an Allied landing in France in late '42 or early '43 would have been a bloodbath, the significance of the gesture to the Russians, I contend, would have been a step forward in reassuring Stalin that he had allies with which he could place confidence in.  Does this mean we were wrong for delaying Overlord until mid-44?  From a military standpoint, no question it was the right thing to do.  But, from a political view, especially with respect to Russian perception, I believe it began the spiral towards the ultimate distrust that provided the foundation of the Cold War.

So often, wars are started because humans are, at their core, selfish, infantile, ignorant, and allow these personal emotions to carry over into their judgements on how to govern themselves.  Communism, just as any other governmental system, ideally works just as well as Democracy.  A benevolent dictatorship in ideal execution is probably the most effective governmental system imagined.  My personal belief, although perhaps incorrect, is that Democracy dilutes the ability of any one individual to decisively affect the life, liberty, and happiness of another.  By reducing the human variable, democracy works--not perfectly, but functional none-the-less.  Communism as perceived by Lenin, probably was similarly functional.  At the end of the day, people just want to be left alone in order to work, feed and raise their families in peace, and live.  I believe there are many systems that can accomplish this.  American "democracy" has worked for us, but surely is not a panacea for the rest of the world.  

I believe the Cold War was an equal balance of a Western perception that the Soviet block was bent on supremacy, just as the Soviets perceived an attempt by the West to dominate politically.  This mutual mistrust and fear, I propose, emerged during the conduct of WWII.

To suggest we should have gone ahead and begun Overlord early simply to reassure one man, Stalin, makes absolutely no sense.  Moving Overlord up would have grossly increased the probability that it would have been unsuccessful.  Had we tried earlier, whatever the subtleties of reassurances given to Stalin and the peoples paradise would have been lost following our defeat.  While what you're saying about "reassurances" also needs to be taken in context.  As I have previously mentioned Stalin was opportunistic from the start and the idea of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Americans just to give this cowardly jack-ass the warm-and-fuzzies would not have set well with the American people.

Also, I don't personnally buy into the "we're all equally bad (or good)" myth.  There is a single fundamental flaw in Communism.  Individuals are far more prone to work for themselves than for the common good.  Personal gain through one's own work drives productivity and success.  The very idea that no matter how hard you work you will never personnaly gain from that work means you won't work.  That's the bottom line reason for why the USSR failed.  By any objective point of view the Soviet Union had everything it needed to succeed, but, despite the size of it's military and it's enormous resources it never got beyond the economic status of a third-world country and that's because of this basic flaw in Communism.  Reagan brought the cold war to an end through the economy not military might.  The US could easily sustain the military build up he started and could have afforded to do twice that; however, the Soviets could not.  Their system could not match the economic might brought about through democracy and so basically went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US.

[storch]

the russians invented toilet paper, the Americans improved the concept by making disposable after each use.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Mace2004
To suggest we should have gone ahead and begun Overlord early simply to reassure one man, Stalin, makes absolutely no sense...  

...Also, I don't personnally buy into the "we're all equally bad (or good)" myth.  

Didn't say we should have invaded early.  Just that Stalin didn't really ever trust us because he always thought we were going to look out for our own interests first, before really committing to help defeat Germany--his perception is what I'm talking about, right or wrong.

Its really not, in my opinion, a good/bad, right/wrong, kind of issue.  Its about perpetuating your society ad infinitum.  So far, for 230 years or so, we've been able to do that.  That the Soviet model failed after 70 years doesn't necessarily make communism a bad theoretical form of government.  Governments succeed or fail based on the governed and those that govern--people.  Stalin manipulated the Russian system to maintain power.  It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany.  The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism.  Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking.  If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system.  When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?

[moot]

"Died on their feet."

A chicken-hen will keep the chicken happy, regardless of its management policies..

[68Hawk]

Stoney, did Stalin every really trust anyone?

It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany. The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism. Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking. If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system. When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?

You're so right.  Not that I'm saying that the model of communism would work, but what the Russians ended up with was not Communism.  I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like if it was.  Better?  Worse?  No way to know.  

Technically both sides needed the other to be its ideological boogeyman.  Without the vast existential threat on either side, arms could not have been justified.  The social control establishments in BOTH countries wouldn't have been justified either.  The many proxy wars, and direct wars for that matter, vying for economic and political sway would have seemed to the people wasteful.  

Sometimes we forget that there's a good beer in the hand on the other side of the table too.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Didn't say we should have invaded early.  Just that Stalin didn't really ever trust us because he always thought we were going to look out for our own interests first, before really committing to help defeat Germany--his perception is what I'm talking about, right or wrong.

Its really not, in my opinion, a good/bad, right/wrong, kind of issue.  Its about perpetuating your society ad infinitum.  So far, for 230 years or so, we've been able to do that.  That the Soviet model failed after 70 years doesn't necessarily make communism a bad theoretical form of government.  Governments succeed or fail based on the governed and those that govern--people.  Stalin manipulated the Russian system to maintain power.  It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany.  The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism.  Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking.  If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system.  When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?

You're right, you didn't say "should" but my point is simple, the USSR (Stalin) got into bed with Hitler and when that little relationship went south he was forced to our side.  Logically, he wasn't really "entitled" to a committment on our part to protect the USSR.  It's only due to Hitler's actions that the USSR became our "allies".  

As far as "communism" itself it concerned, we're talking about something far more significant than mere "labels," it's about the principles behind the lables.  I contend that it is, in fact, fundamentally flawed and would never succeed.  This is a simple matter of understanding human nature.  People, like countries, are motivated by their own enlightened self-interest.  Selflessness is not the natural response of humans but rather the exception that's why selfless acts of heroism or philanthropy for instance are noted as unique.  As a matter of fact the belief in "communism" itself is nothing but individual self-interest.  Someone who isn't part of the "upper class" has a vested interest in a form a government that is based on redistribution of wealth regardless of the individual's work ethic or abilities.  Capitalism requires the individual to be productive if they want to succeed, communism only requires the individual to exist but, beyond that, it requires the individual to be important only as part of the "masses".  That's why liberals in the US work so hard to classify individuals as certain interest groups.  The individual is only important as part of an interest group and those that stray from the group (let's say for instance a conservative black) is chastized and denigrated because he's acting as an individual rather than as he's expected to act as a member of a specific group.  There is nothing constructive in this.

As far as the Chinese are concerned, they are now much closer to the US model than to Communism and are moving farther away as we speak.  Of course, there is a strong argument that we're moving closer to Communism (or more correctly Socialism) all the time, something that I see as extremly negative.  You can find very little evidence that these tendancies have been constructive but lots that show the negative aspects.  Social welfare produced a permanent underclass of those totally dependant upon government largesse for instance.  Students in France rioted in the streets when the governement tried to remove their "right" to permanent employment.  Communist principles "sound" great but have been demonstrated by the "real world" to be abject failures.

[moot]

Education!
The chain is only as strong as its weakest link..

[Vad]

Originally posted by 68Hawk

You're so right.  Not that I'm saying that the model of communism would work, but what the Russians ended up with was not Communism.  I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like if it was.  Better?  Worse?  No way to know.  

 

I would say that is's absolutely correct. There wasn't Communism in the USSR, and I'm sure it would never be. What we had was so far from Communism or even Socialism that it is nothing to talk about.

I was always astonished why the word "Comminism" is so hated on the West. Actually, if we define Communism using mordern terms it is nothing more than high developed social programs.

Funny, but while Russians tried to build Communism in the USSR a lot of countries who never aimed to do that actualy did that. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, in some extent Germany and France and even Canada built something very close to Communism as Russians see it.

Just think how was Communism seen in the beginning of 20th centuary in Russia? Poor country where millions of people died because of starvation and stupidity of ruling goverment. And it was in the one of the richest country in the world at that time. Only what bolsheviks wanted is in fact more or less fair distribution of funds and amenities. They saw solution in prohibition of private property but history told us that there was another way - accurate fair taxation and production efficiency. The same goals could be achived, it would take a little bit more time but give the same results.


Ok, it is another story. Just let use the word "Commnism" correctly understanding what does it mean. Communism has never built, and the USSR had never been Communist country. You can call it thyranny, I can call it developed Socialism (if Sweden will go the same way where it goes now they will know what does it mean ) but let put Communism apart.

[john9001]

<>

[Vad]

Originally posted by john9001
<>

Yes, it is absolutely correct, John. The USSR had never been and had never declared to be Communist country. We called ourself as developed Socialism (delirium but it's another story) but never Communism.
Communist party was called such because they set the goal to build Comminism in the USSR but they failed to do that.

[soda72]

Originally posted by storch
the russians invented toilet paper, the Americans improved the concept by making disposable after each use.

[Mace2004]

Good points Vad.  I'm just not sure that "Communism" would have ever been defined by Marx or Lenin as "highly developed social programs" though.  It was always intended to be much more than that wasn't it?  The common ownership of property is a basic tenent of Communism...how does that equate to a "highly developed social program?"  

The biggest problem still remains the basic construct of the human spirit and that doesn't include common ownership of property.  Sure, it's happened in the past but it has always been small groups that have done this and, as far as I know, none of them sustained this for very long with the exception of the Catholic Church and even the Church has a ruling class.  The reason the Soviet Union never generated true "communism" is because the so-called revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariate didn't exist, or if it did only for the short time it took for the Bolsheviks to consolidate power.  Once they did, they now became the ruling class...hardly part of the proletariate but a perfectly natural, and predictable outcome considering the nature of man.

The West does, and always has believed in social programs (at least in modern history).  The debate isn't whether these should exist, but rather to what extent and under what conditions.  Here in the US President Johnson came up with huge social programs designed to provide for the poor.  So what happened?  The poor became more numerous and less and less capable of working for themselves.  The government, through it's "highly developed social programs" robbed the poor of the ability and initiative to care for themselves and to advance themselves.  Nobody much argues that a "social safety net" isn't needed but cradle to grave wetnursing from the government?  Hardly the best answer.  Also, consider those Euopean nations and think about their futures once the majority of workers are receiving their livings from the government.  Who's going to pay the taxes?

[john9001]

so Vad. what you are saying is that communism is a good thing, but nobody has been able to make it work?