Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, so we all know the tragedies of the US's overreaction to the communist/USSR threat during the cold war: Vietnam, Shah in Iran, Cuba, push for interstate system/suburban sprawl... all in the name of defense. But did the US have to do this? Did it have to be so aggressive to preserve the free world we have today? How much of a margin of error did the US have in the Cold War?
Stalin likely killed more innocent victims than Hitler, and Marxism, like Naziism, is based upon a rigid ideology harnessed to the state's legitimized monopoly on the use of force. In contrast, no nation which has witnessed the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another for an uninterrupted period of one hundred years or more has since taken up the sword against another member of the group.
Although education alone, sponsored by an independent media, should be sufficient for the task, we not only should praise those who stamped out this evil, but must continue our vigilance against those who would re-introduce it.
Marxism itself (the ideology) wasn't the evil. Autocratic dictatorship (Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) WAS, and the problem was that the US picked and chose which dictators to support, depending upon economic needs. The US is STILL in bed with the Saudis, because of oil, and that's a dictatorship. We were/are friendly/unfriendly with various governments in Latin America for similar economic reasons. I am not pro-Marxism, I am pro-democracy, but the facts support what I am saying.
How much of a margin of error did the US have in the Cold War?
I know the US no doubt like the rest of the Allies were exhausted as they wound down the war with the Axis. Unfortunately, in hindsight, I'd wonder if the decision by the US to deal with the Soviet Union politically rather than militarily after the War 'enabled' the Soviets to do as they did in Eastern Europe. Perhap the US had too much hubris that we thought we could 'control' the Soviets. The Soviets as we saw had other ideas.
I know the US no doubt like the rest of the Allies were exhausted as they wound down the war with the Axis. Unfortunately, in hindsight, I'd wonder if the decision by the US to deal with the Soviet Union politically rather than militarily after the War 'enabled' the Soviets to do as they did in Eastern Europe. Perhap the US had too much hubris that we thought we could 'control' the Soviets. The Soviets as we saw had other ideas.
Isn't the notion that the western allies could have defeated the Red Army after the Nazis collapsed, the product of hubris?
Following the extraordinary sacrifice and misery required to overcome Germany, the goal of all the blood and treasure invested, how enthused would Brits and Americans be for..."Congratulations everyone, we have won. Now let us embark on an entirely new war which most likely will be even longer and more costly than the one we just completed."
And if you wish to argue that we could have forced a stalemate until the end of the summer when atomic bombs would be available, just how would they have been used? Force the Soviets out of Prague and Warsaw by nuking those cities?
Considering how many posters in C-D believe that any form of socialism is a must-fail system that cannot possibly be successful, there would be no need for anyone to exercise any effort toward its natural demise. So, in that sense, the US simply fomented and facilitated a series of brutal wars that would not have been necessary in order to eliminate something that was doomed from the start by its own nature. Not that anybody in the US cared about the wellbeing or the Vietnamese or the Koreans or the Nicaraguans, but lots of Americans suffered needlessly in that as well, and could have just stayed home and let communism fail quickly as they are convinced it would have done. In the end, all socialist states would have failed by now in any case, so what was the point? All those wars did give America something to gloat about (losing them all notwithstanding), so I guess from the American standpoint, that was a good and worthwhile thing, like winning Nobel Prizes or medals in the Olympics.
Isn't the notion that the western allies could have defeated the Red Army after the Nazis collapsed, the product of hubris?
Following the extraordinary sacrifice and misery required to overcome Germany, the goal of all the blood and treasure invested, how enthused would Brits and Americans be for..."Congratulations everyone, we have won. Now let us embark on an entirely new war which most likely will be even longer and more costly than the one we just completed."
Yes, I know it was a tough call. But a little gas and a little farther push east of the Elbe maybe with Patton could've arguably could have given some more breathing room to put a little more 'geography' between the Soviets and there future satellite conquests. It seeemd the US was asleep at not knowing that the Soviets were going to be quite a formidable opponent. The thing was Churchill and the US didn't know at the time that Stalin was going to be a complete liar after what he said at Yalta. He said the 'liberated' lands were going to be independent and have free elections. well really it turned out no. Later, he saw which way the wind was blowing there but of course argued that the USSR couldn't tolerate anti-Soviet countries so he squashed the free-election bit. So there you have it. The West got faked out and the East succumbed to occupation and communism. Took us a long time to maybe be friends but really the US and the Soviets will usually have a 'friendly-enemy' relationship in their dealings with each other.
Yes, I know it was a tough call. But a little gas and a little farther push east of the Elbe maybe with Patton could've arguably could have given some more breathing room to put a little more 'geography' between the Soviets and there future satellite conquests. It seeemd the US was asleep at not knowing that the Soviets were going to be quite a formidable opponent. The thing was Churchill and the US didn't know at the time that Stalin was going to be a complete liar after what he said at Yalta. He said the 'liberated' lands were going to be independent and have free elections. well really it turned out no. Later, he saw which way the wind was blowing there but of course argued that the USSR couldn't tolerate anti-Soviet countries so he squashed the free-election bit. So there you have it. The West got faked out and the East succumbed to occupation and communism. Took us a long time to maybe be friends but really the US and the Soviets will usually have a 'friendly-enemy' relationship in their dealings with each other.
They knew alright, I know for a fact that Churchill did and I believe the US knew it too.
Considering how many posters in C-D believe that any form of socialism is a must-fail system that cannot possibly be successful, there would be no need for anyone to exercise any effort toward its natural demise. So, in that sense, the US simply fomented and facilitated a series of brutal wars that would not have been necessary in order to eliminate something that was doomed from the start by its own nature. Not that anybody in the US cared about the wellbeing or the Vietnamese or the Koreans or the Nicaraguans, but lots of Americans suffered needlessly in that as well, and could have just stayed home and let communism fail quickly as they are convinced it would have done. In the end, all socialist states would have failed by now in any case, so what was the point? All those wars did give America something to gloat about (losing them all notwithstanding), so I guess from the American standpoint, that was a good and worthwhile thing, like winning Nobel Prizes or medals in the Olympics.
I partially agree with your above thesis, but then when one stops and considers the difference today between North and South Korea, then the stay at home and wait for it to fail methodology has some shortcomings exposed.
Also...may we make a distinction between "must fail" when referencing the inability of socialism to produce prosperity, and "must fail" when referencing the inevitability of that non appearing prosperity leading to the overthrow of the socialist government? If the latter, then we are left trying to explain North Korea and Cuba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric Yes, I know it was a tough call. But a little gas and a little farther push east of the Elbe maybe with Patton could've arguably could have given some more breathing room to put a little more 'geography' between the Soviets and there future satellite conquests. It seeemd the US was asleep at not knowing that the Soviets were going to be quite a formidable opponent. The thing was Churchill and the US didn't know at the time that Stalin was going to be a complete liar after what he said at Yalta. He said the 'liberated' lands were going to be independent and have free elections. well really it turned out no. Later, he saw which way the wind was blowing there but of course argued that the USSR couldn't tolerate anti-Soviet countries so he squashed the free-election bit. So there you have it. The West got faked out and the East succumbed to occupation and communism. Took us a long time to maybe be friends but really the US and the Soviets will usually have a 'friendly-enemy' relationship in their dealings with each other.
They knew alright, I know for a fact that Churchill did and I believe the US knew it too.
Just a point...
At Potsdam, the US tried to uphold the validity of the Declaration on Liberated Europe which was signed at Yalta. The document noted that the powers GUARANTEED the establishment of democracy in Europe. The US charged that the Soviets had violated the pledge for Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Of course, the Kremlin denied the charge and then the Soviets barged into Greece fomenting a big ruckus between them and the British. In addition, the Soviets were also looking at Turkey for future 'Mediterranean' ventures. The Turks denied them access so that was some success when it came to perhaps neutralzing Soviet ambitions in Europe during the war. And reagrding Churchill's remark about that resulting 'Iron Curtain', Stalin said it was 'fairy tales'. Now there the old Georgian boy was upfront about Soviet realpolitik during the time...;-)...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
