U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2013, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Colorado
3,759 posts, read 3,084,386 times
Reputation: 3140

Advertisements

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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2013, 03:55 AM
Status: "Trump - excepting Jorgensen, the least of multiple evils" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,774 posts, read 8,471,438 times
Reputation: 17854
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 04:00 AM
 
995 posts, read 876,595 times
Reputation: 1383
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 07:31 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,936,646 times
Reputation: 3115
Quote:
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 77,698,159 times
Reputation: 36291
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 09:57 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,936,646 times
Reputation: 3115
Quote:
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: SE UK
8,900 posts, read 7,567,620 times
Reputation: 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 11:29 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,936,646 times
Reputation: 3115
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...;-)...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top