So how do you feel about the Cold War? Are you with the traditionalists, the people who believed that the USA was the defender of democracy, on the defensive against the Soviets? That they bore none of the blame for the Cold War.
Or on the Revisionist Camp, that the US was not totally devoid of blame. That the US was hypocritical, with double standards in its treatment of countries.
Or with the Post-Revisionist. That an American Empire (NATO) existed, created via invitation. That Stalin was largely an opportunist, with no plan of an actual expansion, his foreign policies derived for the Soviet Union's security.
So which side are you on? Personally I'm on the Post-Revisionist camp, with some Revisionist views.
Both countries were using past grudges and fear to to gain a sort of nuclear monopoly over the other. Because of this both countries went into a fear state of "they are going to bomb us". So then they went on the offensive to prevent an attack. So because of this neither country wanted to surrender/give up, because of the fear the other countries would turn around and back stab them.
To me lack of communication and cooperation caused this war to happen and drag on.
Both sides are to blame for the war. The Soviets were looking for power, obviously. But can we honestly say the US was not looking for power? It's absurd to think the US does everything for the good of the world. Yes, we do some good things, but there is always self interest involved.
Below is a piece of an essay I wrote about Stalin:
Right after WWII, and before the Cold War started, the Russians were scared to death of the Germans. Germany had devastated Russia twice in just over 30 years. Stalin called for a weak Germany so they could not attack the Russians again. It only made sense. The warmongering Germans had killed about 40 million Russians in two wars. Almost every country in the world feared Germany and wanted them to be weakened. The United States, on the other hand, called for a strong democratic Germany. This would make sure that they did not look to another dictator to lead them. It was very risky, and Stalin refused to allow it. To weaken Germany, he had the Soviets take over the areas they controlled in hopes that a non-unified Germany would be took weak to cause a future war. He also made sure that the rest of Eastern Europe was allied with the Soviets to act as a buffer zone in case of an attack.
I'm not trying to justify Stalin's actions. But I'm trying to create some historical empathy here. If you were the leader of the Soviet Union after WWII, you would probably be scared to death of the Germans as well. In your mind, the US is crazy to call for a unified, strong Germany. The only real way to counter this is to take over your half of Germany and keep the Germans from unifying. And again, most of Europe sided with Stalin on the German question. So this was not just Stalin trying to take over as much territory as possible. There was a mass fear of the Germans, and Stalin was simply trying to protect Russia from future attack.
Both sides had self-interest, imperial desires, and the thought that their system was the best. Along with that, a breakdown in communication led to the Cold War.
Or with the Post-Revisionist. That an American Empire (NATO) existed, created via invitation. That Stalin was largely an opportunist, with no plan of an actual expansion, his foreign policies derived for the Soviet Union's security.
Stalin was by no means expansionist. He was trying to achieve socialism in one country. Why do you think the USSR gave no aid to any countries outside the Warsaw Pact? He was rather more pure Marxist than people think. He discouraged the Spanish communist party to rise up during the civil war because he believed that they had not gone through the proper phases beforehand and would subsequently fail, even though this could have resulted in a communist Spanish government.
I believe the Soviets just wanted to reap the spoils of WW2. They felt unfairly overshadowed by the sufferings of the Jews and other minorities during the war anfd felt most of Eastern Europe was theirs by right, including East Germany. The USA on the other hand didn't want to repeat the debacle that was the Traety of Versailles and the subsequent pre war years and felt Germany should not be punished too harshly. The subsequent years stemmed from this clash of agendas. It was never about communism vs democracy. Pre cold war many Americans were fond of Stalin.
He was not an expansionist, I've not said that before. His world revolution and support for some Communists movements I believe was for his own security, buffer states. Thats my belief. He did not try to attempt expansion, he turned down some Communist movements, such as the Italian one. Yeah, I just finished a module on Cold War.
Glad to see that there are no Traditionalists. Stupid Traditionalists.
I believe the Soviets just wanted to reap the spoils of WW2. They felt unfairly overshadowed by the sufferings of the Jews and other minorities during the war anfd felt most of Eastern Europe was theirs by right, including East Germany. The USA on the other hand didn't want to repeat the debacle that was the Traety of Versailles and the subsequent pre war years and felt Germany should not be punished too harshly. The subsequent years stemmed from this clash of agendas. It was never about communism vs democracy. Pre cold war many Americans were fond of Stalin.
Not exactly enjoy, look at those uprisings. I prefer to call the Iron Curtain the Iron Blanket, It was a shield for the USSR, that's why NATO intervention in West Germany made them feel insecure.
He was not an expansionist, I've not said that before.
I never claimed you did.
Yeah, I just finished a module on Cold War.
Does that make your opinion more valid than others? No. Then why say it? Plus for all I know it could be a pre school module with little relevant information.
Not exactly enjoy, look at those uprisings. I prefer to call the Iron Curtain the Iron Blanket, It was a shield for the USSR, that's why NATO intervention in West Germany made them feel insecure.
Not sure what you mean by enjoy.
Not sure which uprisings you are reffering to.
I don't quite understand why you quoted me, your reply doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.
He was not an expansionist, I've not said that before. I never claimed you did. Yeah, I just finished a module on Cold War. Does that make your opinion more valid than others? No. Then why say it? Plus for all I know it could be a pre school module with little relevant information. Not exactly enjoy, look at those uprisings. I prefer to call the Iron Curtain the Iron Blanket, It was a shield for the USSR, that's why NATO intervention in West Germany made them feel insecure. Not sure what you mean by enjoy. Not sure which uprisings you are reffering to. I don't quite understand why you quoted me, your reply doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.
Ok to make it explicitly clear for someone who picks small blimps in my post, I started this thread as I finished the module and am interested in other POVs happy?
And the word enjoy... You wrote reap the spoils, something like enjoy. Uprisings by Hungary and the Czechs against the USSR.
I refuted your point that the Soviets enjoyed its gains, I feel that no they had a hard time controlling these satellite states.
I refuted your point that the Soviets enjoyed its gains, I feel that no they had a hard time controlling these satellite states.
Up until Glasnost and liberlisation the USSR remained fairly stable. Neither of these uprisings threatened the stability of the USSR in the long term.
Ok to make it explicitly clear for someone who picks small blimps in my post, I started this thread as I finished the module and am interested in other POVs happy?
No. I am not disputing your motives for creating this thread, but this statement:
Assumptions have always been drawn on innocent sentences throughout Man's history so the only option would be to forgive and regret such ignorance and oversight.
Up until Glasnost and liberlisation the USSR remained fairly stable. Neither of these uprisings threatened the stability of the USSR in the long term.
Not saying they were not stable, saying USSR used these states as buffers.
Well guys, let's drop this "argument" and discuss the different points of view calmly, without criticizing what the others say.
Being nor American nor Russian, I have never been taught that America was the greatest nation, defender of democracy, nor have I been taught that the USA were the enemy, a rotten system with a rotten economy. Instead, I have been taught that 2 models existed and that they coudn't coexist peacefully. I believe that both sides were at fault, but for different reasons: -USSR, for example, took control over the countries it had freed at the end of WW II, disregarding the agreements that had been settled about "free elections" and "democratic systems". - USA did nothing to normalize relations with the USSR, quite on the contrary: they wanted to show the soviets that they were more powerful (some say that impressing Stalin was one of the major motives that urged Truman to use the A bomb).
Fo those who say that the USA were really defending democracy and thus had the right to act the way they did, then how do you explain their actions in South America? They help dictators take the power in Chile (1973), Bolivia (1987), Grenade (1983), intervened in Panama (1989) and many other countries..
Also, I noticed that a lot of people nowadays tend to associate stalinism with marxism... which originally are 2 different "doctrins" . Lenin himself said that Stalin shouldn't be given the authority because he would create a harsh totalitarian system. Lenin, who had had the idea of a "eaceful coexistence" between USSR and the USA... Khrouchtchev, in 1956, started purging the system after Stalin's death....
By these exemples, I just want to point out that there wasn't a good system and a bad one, it wasn't all white un the USA side and all black on the USSR's side. It turned out that real democracy was the best system, or at least appears to be the best system...
But remember what Churchill himself said: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
USSR, for example, took control over the countries it had freed at the end of WW II, disregarding the agreements that had been settled about "free elections" and "democratic systems".
Yes but the reason I believe so was not for territorial gain, it was to act as a buffer against NATO and the US. That's why they were so nervous in East Germany. When the Soviet Archives was open, no master plan of Stalin was found. He did not have some grandidose plan to take over the world. He essentially wanted security for the USSR, the Great Patriotic War left its indelible mark on him. Germany always remained in the Soviets eyes, the main enemy. Foreign Minister Shevardnadze told visitors that when his grandchildren played war games Germany remained the enemy.
Moscow's initial plans were geared towards to defending a Western attack, not a Western assualt.Stalin turned down support for the Greek, Italian and Finnish Communists.
Soz that was my argument. Go ahead and shoot it to bits.
Being nor American nor Russian, I have never been taught that America was the greatest nation, defender of democracy, nor have I been taught that the USA were the enemy, a rotten system with a rotten economy.
From looking at your profile, it seems you are from France, and although they would not teach in an overtly biased way, the bias towards the West would no doubt still be there.
Moscow's initial plans were geared towards to defending a Western attack, not a Western assualt.Stalin turned down support for the Greek, Italian and Finnish Communists.
In the case of Greece, that was because it had been agreed Greece would remain outside his sphere of influence at the Yalta conference. The main reason he turned down many other communist groups was because they were not pure communists. For example during the Spanish Civil War, within the left side of the ideologies, the communists and the Marxists were 2 distinct groups. The communists wanted to seize power and run Spain. The Marxists wanted the inevitable Marxist determinist view to take shape over time, naturally. Stalin funded and armed the Marxists not the Communists. Despite Trotsky being seen as the only chance there was for pure communism to be instigated, Stalin did strive to keep to Marxist principles. The pragmatic problems of the day dictated his descisions, not the fact that he wasn't a Marxist at heart.
