Was the Cold War really about US vs. Communism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Or was it more about being against ANY form of independence for third world nations? I noticed that not all of the movements that the US opposed during that time were Communist.

Mosadeq was not a Communist, in fact was an adamant Monarchist who just wanted to nationalize the nations oil.

Juan Peron was a quasi-fascist who wanted Argentina to run on a coporatist model.

Sukarno was a nationalist who wanted to kick imperialist forces out and even signed a pact with other nationalists like Nasser of Egypt that opposed both US and the USSR.

There are plenty other examples but you get the point. The US didn't like the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution, and Saddam Hussein after they decided to go independent. So the US wasn't fighting a war against Leftist Communism, because it also fought against these right wing movements too.

It was fighting ANY independent movement that threatened US business interests. It wanted to force free trade on the third world to reap the profits while practicing protectionism and Keynesian economics at home.

Is this more or less right?

[Invincible Summer]

Well it's helpful that the USSR was the other significant world power at the time, so it's easier to blame them than all the smaller struggles that they probably didn't want anyone to know about.

But your analysis is generally correct (to my knowledge) - and obviously not just applicable to the cold war.

[blake 3:17]

Is this more or less right?

Yes.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, yeah. US foreign policy has been primarily about establishing and maintaining global hegemony for the past century. The Cold War was no exception.

[the last donut of the night]

RadioRaheem, your analysis is pretty good. But yeah, the U.S would crush any movement that could undermine its economic power.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Seems right. The US will bitterly oppose anything that threatens their position on the world stage. To use more modern examples, the US is pretty much going ballistic over North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons while they have the most in the world(besides Russia). Not to mention, they were of course the only country to ever use them in combat. There's also the oil war going on in the middle east. As a valuable resourse the US wants control over the world's supply of oil.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Correct.

I think Cuba is a good example of how Cold War politics played out with national liberation struggles. Castro said his movement was nationalist and it was all about National liberation. Well, Cuba was also part of the US's property (according to the US) and so when Castro wanted to nationalize things and kick out US companies that he felt were harmful to his project, the US tried to oust the new government and even kill Castro himself (in many hilarious Peter Sellers-esque assasination plots). Well, then with US hostility, Cuba turned to the USSR for trade and aid and Castro declared that he had always been a Marxist-Lenninist.

It wasn't always so clear cut, because the two powers often betrayed the 3rd world countries in order to make a deal or preserve the super-power staus quo, but more or less all the national independence movements throught the world in the post-war period had to basically pick sides with either the US, USSR, or the Independent block.

THe US's motivation while often connected to resources or trade and other pure economic things also wanted to keep the post-war staus quo. So even countries like Vietnam which had marginal strategic "loot" were important to controll because the US ruling class knows (i.e. the domino effect) that if any country can call its own shots, then it makes it harder for the US. Algeria and Vietnam and many other countries showed that people could fight back and that is a threat to any world power that wants to be able to call the shots in trade agreements and debt-payment and resource rights and so on without waging a war each time to achieve its aims. The US and USSR would have been much happier if no movements challenged their right to rule the world.

[RadioRaheem84]

Correct.

I think Cuba is a good example of how Cold War politics played out with national liberation struggles. Castro said his movement was nationalist and it was all about National liberation. Well, Cuba was also part of the US's property (according to the US) and so when Castro wanted to nationalize things and kick out US companies that he felt were harmful to his project, the US tried to oust the new government and even kill Castro himself (in many hilarious Peter Sellers-esque assasination plots). Well, then with US hostility, Cuba turned to the USSR for trade and aid and Castro declared that he had always been a Marxist-Lenninist.

It wasn't always so clear cut, because the two powers often betrayed the 3rd world countries in order to make a deal or preserve the super-power staus quo, but more or less all the national independence movements throught the world in the post-war period had to basically pick sides with either the US, USSR, or the Independent block.

THe US's motivation while often connected to resources or trade and other pure economic things also wanted to keep the post-war staus quo. So even countries like Vietnam which had marginal strategic "loot" were important to controll because the US ruling class knows (i.e. the domino effect) that if any country can call its own shots, then it makes it harder for the US. Algeria and Vietnam and many other countries showed that people could fight back and that is a threat to any world power that wants to be able to call the shots in trade agreements and debt-payment and resource rights and so on without waging a war each time to achieve its aims. The US and USSR would have been much happier if no movements challenged their right to rule the world.


So basically third world nations that wanted to remove the imperialist hand away from their lands had three choices:

A.) Capitulate to the US

B.) Fight the US alone.

C.) Fight the US with concessions made to the USSR? Basically be a slightly less ***** of a slightly less corrupt nation?

[blake 3:17]

RR84, you are very to the point. I think your analysis is pretty right on. I've never seen it summed up with so few words.

[proudcomrade]

Or was it more about being against ANY form of independence for third world nations? I noticed that not all of the movements that the US opposed during that time were Communist.

Mosadeq was not a Communist, in fact was an adamant Monarchist who just wanted to nationalize the nations oil.

Juan Peron was a quasi-fascist who wanted Argentina to run on a coporatist model.

Sukarno was a nationalist who wanted to kick imperialist forces out and even signed a pact with other nationalists like Nasser of Egypt that opposed both US and the USSR.

There are plenty other examples but you get the point. The US didn't like the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution, and Saddam Hussein after they decided to go independent. So the US wasn't fighting a war against Leftist Communism, because it also fought against these right wing movements too.

It was fighting ANY independent movement that threatened US business interests. It wanted to force free trade on the third world to reap the profits while practicing protectionism and Keynesian economics at home.

Is this more or less right?


I think that you are right. For instance, a bunch of documents were recently declassified surrounding the overthrow and death of Salvador Allende; and although he specifically was a declared Socialist and an ally of Cuba, there is one key piece of information that I still found intriguing when I first came across the published papers: I had thought that they would be CIA or Dep't. of Defense papers. I was mistaken.

They were internal memoranda of the US corporation ITT. ITT expressly stated that they intended to prevent the ratification of Allende's presidency by the use of US government operatives; and when that failed, they started meddling in the movement that would result in Pinochet's takeover. ITT had more to do with it than did Kissinger or Nixon themselves.

[tehpevis]

The general feeling was, in the 50s and from each side,

"God's boys vs. Drunken, Freedom Hating Atheists" and
"Heroes of the Working Class vs. Imperialist-Revisionist-Fascist-Trotskyite Traitors"

[Comrade Anarchist]

No. When dictators started overthrowing governments that allowed the U.S. capitalists to enslave their people those capitalists got mad.

[cb9's_unity]

In America I usually see the cold war portrayed as Democracy vs. Communism. However the U.S wasn't motivated by democracy and the USSR wasn't motivated by communism. Both simply used ideological rhetoric to lie and distort the truth about their imperialistic activities. This is most clearly seen in the United States actions in central and south America.

So yah, the OP pretty much got it spot on.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It is worth noting the similarity in behaviour between the two powers - the USSR was as friendly towards Hungarian or Czech independence, for instance, as the US was towards Chilean or Cuban.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

How can you have a war against something that doesn't exist?

Communism was just the excuse used to support it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well in a sense it was. That is because the US was afraid that Russia's imperialism would be a threat to their empire.

[Dimentio]

We will soon have a Second Cold War.

Western Capitalists (USA, EU, the NATO) against Eastern Capitalists (China, Russia, the SCO).

[the last donut of the night]

We will soon have a Second Cold War.

Western Capitalists (USA, EU, the NATO) against Eastern Capitalists (China, Russia, the SCO).

You got the sources for that?

[Kayser_Soso]

We will soon have a Second Cold War.

Western Capitalists (USA, EU, the NATO) against Eastern Capitalists (China, Russia, the SCO).


The EU will most likely end up on Russia's side, so long as a war does not break out soon. Russia has been drifting closer to the EU, and the EU's response to the war in Georgia shows how they are willing to shelf all that previous "Russophobia" so long as Medvedev keeps the gas and resources flowing. Russian oil and gas gives the EU the potential to overcome America's dominance of the Middle East.

[Dimentio]

You got the sources for that?

Isn't it obvious that there must be a conflict.

The EU is dedicating a lot of resources to achieve energy independence. If the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc had held together until now, the west would be in a dire state. Imagine the Soviet Union holding Europe's fortune through the gas.