The Cold War.

[MrCharizma]

I was just wondering if some people could help me out on the topic of the Cold War.
Mainly on the origins of the Cold War, how it started, what started it etc etc.
Any information will be much appreciated.

[RED DAVE]

You might start here. By the way, the author is one of the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were murdered by the US government during the Cold War.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n2_v48/ai_18375976/

RED DAVE

[MrCharizma]

Ah thanks, the book my teacher gave me is quite biased. Along with the article that another history teacher from our school wrote, is also rather a pathetic attempt to justify capitalism, and basically slag communism.

[chimx]

origins of the Cold War

WWII happened. Roosevelt and Stalin were buddies. They knew that they were going to defeat Germany and were together planning on post-war borders and what-have-you. See the Yalta Conference for examples of their collaboration.

Then FDR died.

FDR did not really keep VP Truman in the loop. A lot of FDR's agreements with Stalin were verbal agreements, which Truman was often times unaware of. Truman met with Stalin at Potsdam. They disagreed on a lot of stuff and laid the foundation for what grew into the Cold War. While the US and USSR had been world powers working together, Truman and the US started viewing Soviet foreign policy as expansionism and took a more antagonistic view. This lead to conflicts in germany, korea, etc.

[Chuck Stone]

Interesting viewpoint on the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin chimx. Do you have any citations?

The way I always saw it, was that Roosevelt and Churchill's ideologies were competely at odds with that of the Soviet Union, and the WWII alliance was purely because of the common enemy that was Nazi Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact shows that history could very easily have taken a different turn, and resulted in a Nazi-Soviet alliance against the French, British and United States, and instead of the East-West Cold War, it would have been a Fascist-Communist one. What I'm getting at is that the 1920s and 30s was a 3-way ideological struggle with 3 distinct and opposing ideologies vying for supremacy as neither Fascism, Communism or Capitalism could realistically co-exist with any of the other ideologies.

So, when the Americans developed the A-Bomb in 1945, they made their ideological allies like Britain and France aware of the development, but deliberately kept the Soviet Union out of the loop as there was already very little trust between the powers, and with good reason. The Soviets had openly funded the strikers during the 1926 General Strike in order to fuel unrest and perhaps even attempt to trigger a Socialist revolution within the UK. Meanwhile, Churchill had criticised the Soviet Union for many years prior to the war, even going as far to state that if he had a choice between Nazism and Communism, he would go for Nazism (thankfully he never had to make that choice and chose to fight them both). Going further back, The British Empire, along with France and the USA had actively been involved in the Russian Civil War against the fledgeling Soviet Union. Also, going back the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, prior to Hitlers invasion of Russia, the Soviets had essentially sided with the Nazis without going as far as to actively involve itself in the war. So rather than seeing the breakdown after WWII as a change of diplomatic relations, it was more a return to the status quo that existed before 1941. Needless to say however, the refusal of the Allied powers to involve Stalin at all levels of strategic planning made certain that the distrust would continue. After all, how can Stalin trust an "ally" that openly shows distrust to him.

Russia then continued to behave in an increasingly uncooperative way regarding the occupation of the defeated Germany, firstly by using their custodianship of East Germany to the modify the political system in their favour, and by relocating skilled technicians and factories to the Soviet Union itself.

Then we have the Berlin Blockade. Most history books you find will tell a story that among this atmosphere of distrust, the Soviets decided to finally get the ball moving and kick the West out of Germany by blockading West Berlin from the rest of Soviet controlled Germany (which incidentally totally enveloped Berlin, and also provided about 98% of all the food requirements of West Berlin). Conveniently, this effectively turns the Soviets into the true aggressors and essentially lays the blame of the ensuing Cold War at their feet. It also sidelines the years of deliberate alienation, verbal attacks and active attempts to underming the Soviet regime that the British and Americans had been participating in for the previous 25 years.

[RadioRaheem84]

People are acting like the Cold War started after WWII and that the US tried it's hardest not to invade Russia, but little do people know that the US had already invaded the USSR before the start of WWII! Woodrow Wilson sent troops to the USSR in order to assist more troops sent by France and the UK to assist the White Army in quelling the Russian Revolution. The USSR from it's advent did not know one day of peace thanks to the Western Powers and Fascism. Look at the Cold War in that context, the next time some joke of a professor tries to tell you that the Cold War was a war of restraint with the US keeping Communism at bay, and making the world safe for Democracy. The USSR was subjected to the same strain of democratic squashing the US has always engaged in, before there was any such Cold War.

[Chuck Stone]

I would say that was a different "war". The Cold War was specifically the post-war relationship, because the US and USSR were allies during WWII. It is not unheard of for powers to engage in more than one war with one another even over the same dispute.

The Western intervention in the Russian Civil War was definitely a major contributing factor in the icy relationship though, if not the prime catalyst. After all, while the USSR may have entered the post-war era by provoking the West. The stall had already been set out by the West. It seems to me only natural that the USSR would feel threatened as soon as the common enemy of Fascism was eliminated.

I do find it interesting that the common feeling tends to fall that the free West defended democracy from the encroachments of the "evil" Communist forces. The USSR never threatened to launch any nuclear attack against NATO except as a retaliatory strike against a nuclear attack. The US however threatened nuclear war as a "massive retaliation" against conventional attacks. It was the US that started the arms race when they bombed Hiroshima. In a single attack they demonstrated the capacity and the will to destroy the world if necessary.

The USSR had their hand forced. If they hadn't come to military parity, the US had already attacked them, they had already wiped out two Japanese cities to enact "regime change", only an idiot would rule out them turning immediately on the USSR to finish what they started. But that is not to say that the Cold War was a continuation of the same hostilities. The Cold War is a seperate issue insofar as peace was maintained and allegiances signed during World War II.

[chimx]

Interesting viewpoint on the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin chimx. Do you have any citations?

go read about the yalta conference. americans used to call stalin "uncle joe" cause everybody was so buddy-buddy with the ussr during wwii. The transition between FDR->Truman is what started the cold war.

[Coggeh]

The cold war didn't start after 1945 (which depends on the definition obviously but if you take it as US/Soviet hostility) then it began in 1917 WW2 was just a lunch break.before WW2 it was an ideological hostility between socialism and capitalism (speaking very broadly here).Let us not forget the western invasion of Russia during the civil to back the whites against the revolutionary socialist government.



go read about the yalta conference. americans used to call stalin "uncle joe" cause everybody was so buddy-buddy with the ussr during wwii. The transition between FDR->Truman is what started the cold war.
This is quite a naive statement, to say that the cold war depended on FDR not telling something to Truman is to say that FDR in the first place could single handily control US foreign relations with the Soviet Union without anyone else getting wind of it after ww2.

[ComradeOm]

The cold war didn't start after 1945 (which depends on the definition obviously but if you take it as US/Soviet hostility) then it began in 1917 WW2 was just a lunch breakThe phrase 'the Cold War' was not coined until 1945 and almost invariably refers to the post-war competition between the USA and USSR. That there was background and ideological baggage to this competition does not invalidate this

And the "lunch break" effectively lasted from 1920 to 1947. During this period Washington and Moscow either effectively ignored each other or worked together. They were not in direct competition


This is quite a naive statement, to say that the cold war depended on FDR not telling something to Truman is to say that FDR in the first place could single handily control US foreign relations with the Soviet Union without anyone else getting wind of it after ww2.You are suggesting the the President of the United States had no influence over the foreign policy pursued by the US government?

There's no question that personal relations between Stalin and FDR were warm - 'Uncle Joe' could be quite the charmer when he wanted - and that the absence of such a connection with Truman led to a noted chill in relations. Obviously this is not the only reason for the Cold War but the different personalities of both presidents was definitely a factor in turning two erstwhile allies against each other

[Barry Lyndon]

People are acting like the Cold War started after WWII and that the US tried it's hardest not to invade Russia, but little do people know that the US had already invaded the USSR before the start of WWII! Woodrow Wilson sent troops to the USSR in order to assist more troops sent by France and the UK to assist the White Army in quelling the Russian Revolution. The USSR from it's advent did not know one day of peace thanks to the Western Powers and Fascism. Look at the Cold War in that context, the next time some joke of a professor tries to tell you that the Cold War was a war of restraint with the US keeping Communism at bay, and making the world safe for Democracy. The USSR was subjected to the same strain of democratic squashing the US has always engaged in, before there was any such Cold War.

Something that every Russian schoolchild knows, but you would be hard pressed to find one American in a thousand who is aware of this. And yet we are told that the Russians were/are "paranoid" and "xenophobic".

[RadioRaheem84]

From it's inception, the USSR knew not one day of peace. From revolution, civil war, western intervention, fascist imperialism, Cold War, to inner manipulation. This should be taken into account when judging the USSR and it's historical record. I still find it fascinating though that such a country being bombarded from all fronts was able to still provide a modicum of decent living standards for it's people. The same cannot be said though for when the Iron Curtain fell.

[Robocommie]

I'm generally pro-Soviet, but since the subject of Soviet expansionism has come up, I have always had a bit of a hangup about the Soviet invasions of Finland and the Baltic states.

[RebelDog]

WWII happened. Roosevelt and Stalin were buddies. They knew that they were going to defeat Germany and were together planning on post-war borders and what-have-you. See the Yalta Conference for examples of their collaboration.

Then FDR died.

FDR did not really keep VP Truman in the loop. A lot of FDR's agreements with Stalin were verbal agreements, which Truman was often times unaware of. Truman met with Stalin at Potsdam. They disagreed on a lot of stuff and laid the foundation for what grew into the Cold War. While the US and USSR had been world powers working together, Truman and the US started viewing Soviet foreign policy as expansionism and took a more antagonistic view. This lead to conflicts in germany, korea, etc.

The cold war was probably always going to happen. Having 2 world imperial superpowers is going to lead to cold/hot war in any circumstances. The leading actors in the play aren't really important, the script was written.

[Sir Comradical]

From it's inception, the USSR knew not one day of peace. From revolution, civil war, western intervention, fascist imperialism, Cold War, to inner manipulation. This should be taken into account when judging the USSR and it's historical record. I still find it fascinating though that such a country being bombarded from all fronts was able to still provide a modicum of decent living standards for it's people. The same cannot be said though for when the Iron Curtain fell.

Exactly. Also, the USSR played a huge role in assisting national liberation movements across the Third World. This is usually cited by rightists (and some leftists) as an example of Soviet imperialism which is nonsense. Unlike the United States, the USSR didn't extract massive amounts of wealth in the form of cheap labour and resources. Like Parenti said, they always traded on terms beneficial to the country they were assisting. Hell I'll say it, the Soviets sided with progressive movements, the United States sided with ruling class reactionaries.

[Sir Comradical]

Something that every Russian schoolchild knows, but you would be hard pressed to find one American in a thousand who is aware of this. And yet we are told that the Russians were/are "paranoid" and "xenophobic".

Rightist degenerate: The Cheka killed like 200,000 people!
Me: They were fighting the White Army. The same White Army that massacred tens of thousands of jews in the Ukraine. The same White Army that was supported by the West including the United States when 13 other capitalist countries invaded the USSR before it's first birthday.
Rightist degenerate: So are you justifying the murder of 200,000 people?
Me: Yes. Killing thousands of pro-tsarist, racist reactionaries doesn't make me lose sleep at night. I win, you lose.

[Barry Lyndon]

From it's inception, the USSR knew not one day of peace. From revolution, civil war, western intervention, fascist imperialism, Cold War, to inner manipulation. This should be taken into account when judging the USSR and it's historical record. I still find it fascinating though that such a country being bombarded from all fronts was able to still provide a modicum of decent living standards for it's people. The same cannot be said though for when the Iron Curtain fell.

When discussing this reality with those not familiar with the history, I ask them to imagine what it would be like if, during the American Civil War, the Confederates were being directly supported and supplied by tens of thousands of British and French troops. To imagine if while the Union was trying to defeat the Confederate rebellion, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were also being blockaded by British warships and forced Lincoln to choose between feeding the major cities and feeding the countryside, and the incredible chaos and strife that would ensue from whatever decision he made(As it was, Lincoln did jail political opponents for pro-Confederate sympathies and suspended habeus corpus, for which he was denounced as a dictator).

Or if their historically challenged, ask them to imagine what it would be like if a foreign power invaded the United States, and in the subsequent war 30-45 million Americans perished(roughly equivalent to the entire population of California). Imagine New York City or Chicago were besieged for nearly two and a half years, and half of its population was wiped out from shelling, bombing, and starvation. Imagine that the invaders went as far as the Mississippi before finally being turned back, turning the entire industrial base of the Midwest and East into smoldering rubble. Imagine that behind the front lines, millions of Americans were massacred with machine guns and dumped into mass graves, or were burned alive in their towns because they dared to resist the invaders with whatever crude weapons they had. Imagine that millions more Americans were abducted and shipped across the ocean to serve as slave labor for the foreign powers war machine.

Now, what sort of society would emerge out of such an experience?

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. Why don't people see that when examining the USSR? I am sorry to say but the USSR was the lesser of two evils hands down. I share Satre's sentiments in his interview at Yale long ago where he said that the USSR was not going to be the one to start WWIII. The US was clearly the aggressor.

[Sir Comradical]

When discussing this reality with those not familiar with the history, I ask them to imagine what it would be like if, during the American Civil War, the Confederates were being directly supported and supplied by tens of thousands of British and French troops. To imagine if while the Union was trying to defeat the Confederate rebellion, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were also being blockaded by British warships and forced Lincoln to choose between feeding the major cities and feeding the countryside, and the incredible chaos and strife that would ensue from whatever decision he made(As it was, Lincoln did jail political opponents for pro-Confederate sympathies and suspended habeus corpus, for which he was denounced as a dictator).

Or if their historically challenged, ask them to imagine what it would be like if a foreign power invaded the United States, and in the subsequent war 30-45 million Americans perished(roughly equivalent to the entire population of California). Imagine New York City or Chicago were besieged for nearly two and a half years, and half of its population was wiped out from shelling, bombing, and starvation. Imagine that the invaders went as far as the Mississippi before finally being turned back, turning the entire industrial base of the Midwest and East into smoldering rubble. Imagine that behind the front lines, millions of Americans were massacred with machine guns and dumped into mass graves, or were burned alive in their towns because they dared to resist the invaders with whatever crude weapons they had. Imagine that millions more Americans were abducted and shipped across the ocean to serve as slave labor for the foreign powers war machine.

Now, what sort of society would emerge out of such an experience?

Quoted for truth!

[chimx]

The cold war was probably always going to happen. Having 2 world imperial superpowers is going to lead to cold/hot war in any circumstances. The leading actors in the play aren't really important, the script was written.

Maybe. But FDR was more willing to make concessions to Stalin regarding the soviet sphere of influence in eastern Europe. There was a dramatic policy change between FDR and Truman which I think certainly increased hostilities and had the effect of leading to conflicts such as the Korean War.

[Red Rebel]

I'd aruge that the Cold War developed because the USSR chose to fight the Western powers on their terms. i.e. they gave up class war and fought based on nationalities. This resulted in Russians vs. Americans as opposed to proletariat vs. bourgeoisie. I'm sure that some Trotskyists could argue that this is a result of socialism in one country.

[Brother No. 1]

There was a dramatic policy change between FDR and Truman..

Mostly since Truman was more wanting of send aid to either nation if one got to strong but he "didnt want Hitler to win". This is taken from "Killing Hope" by William Blum.

Not to mention during the October Revolution Wiston Churchill had rarely good leanings with the USSR (as did the..rest of the empires) This quote comes from him

"Were they [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall. But war—shocking! Interference—shame! It was, they repeated, a matter of indifference to them how Russians settled their own internal affairs. They were impartial—Bang!"

Usually not declaring it was a meaning of war or interference with the Russian goverment but more 'helping them' along their path.

The Cold war could have been the overwheling tenstions from the Allies who wanted a pro-western Germany and the USSR who wanted a neutral Germany with no armands to make sure another World war would not be made. (I believe Molotov's speech during the Italian Invasion of Ethiopia really proved that the USSR and all others knew the Leauge of nations had truely failed and a better protectment of forces should be made to maintain peace..it wasnt only untill 45 was the UN made in which came into the US,UK, and France's own personaly tool to justify war and liberation).

That and the CIA interventions in the entire world would have made any nation distrust them. From China to today.

[stella2010]

We were on our way to ROME.

We had the GREEKS.

We had the AK-47

We didn't have Black ops CIA

So

We lost the GREEKS

But

We had very loyal GREEKS

So

How much is GREECE worth to you?


LET THE COLD WAR BEGIN :cool:

[MrCharizma]

We were on our way to ROME.

We had the GREEKS.

We had the AK-47

We didn't have Black ops CIA

So

We lost the GREEKS

But

We had very loyal GREEKS

So

How much is GREECE worth to you?


LET THE COLD WAR BEGIN :cool:

You have left me very confused. What does this all mean?
As you can see I am still learning :)

[bailey_187]

Richard Saul's The Cold War and After is a very good book on the Cold War.

[stella2010]

You have left me very confused. What does this all mean?
As you can see I am still learning :)


MrCharizma;

It is how you say it.

Produce a syntax that is slow and meaningful.

It really does mean what is says.

The cold war at its height was fought in a cold way. That is, the main armies of capitalism and Communism did not engage with one another in a HOT battle.

These clandestine "situations" occurred throughout Greece, Turkey and also in the Italian country side. I know this because my cousin in Italy is a socialist. She came to Australia after the CRONULLA RACE RIOTS, we had a good talk and I learnt about cold war and spoke some Italian, however i am slavic.

Russian intelligence moved its ideology west and the Greek state embraced socialism, but this then became a threat to the powerbase of ROME. (THE MONEY)

BUT.

Russian intelligence was already in the Italian country side and meet up with the MAFIA who also hate the Government.

SO

Operatives from America (ITALIAN OPERATIVES) and CHINESE ZEN masters
maybe JAPANESE, helped kick some arse in YUGOSLAVIA and ITALY.

The ITALIAN MAFIA HITMEN from AMERICA played the RUSSIAN intelligence
in ITALY and slowly killed them off. This became more apparent as the IRON CURTAIN came to a close. This is why we have a massive RUSSIAN MAFIA today. (its a black market olympics over here on the east side).

THE COLD WAR..that is in question, was particularly a result of an ideological clash between those peoples of ITALY, GREECE and to an extent TURKEY.

Further more it should be noted that at the time of the COLD WAR height in the late 1940s, GREECE was engaged in a civil war.

IT IS STILL GOING.

[MrCharizma]

I don't know much about the situations in Italy, Turkey and Greece during the post-war period.
But all i can say is that, isn't the majority of the focus and the impact of the Cold War between mainly the Allies ie France Britain and USA versus the USSR?

[human strike]

Is there any evidence to suggest the Soviets supported the socialists in the Greek Civil War? Everything I've read about it was written before the fall of the USSR unfortunately, but the strong impression I have received is that Stalin did his best to discourage the Greek rebels, much like how he discouraged the party in France.

The best way of explaining the origins of the Cold War from my perspective is simply as imperialist competition. Each power deliberately painted the other as an aggressor, a threat, in order to legitimise their own imperialism in the name of defence and to capitalise on the the new situation created by the Second World War.

To label the actions of both powers as simply aggression however would, imo, be mistaken. When they looked at each other each to a certain extent they saw themselves and as such they saw a dangerous threat. Expansionism then was not only an act of aggression but also an act of defence. Stalin is often portrayed as either Hitleresque and land-hungry or as a cowardly drunk afraid of the outside world. In fact the truth is probably neither and both, a mixture of the two. Keen to exploit for imperialist gains, reparations and the rebuilding of a devastated country, but also keen to create a buffer between himself and the West. The Soviets knew their Marxism, they knew the dangers of capitalist-imperialism, not to mention the long history and culture in Russia of fearing the outside world (and with good reason one might suggest). The US was building hundreds of naval and air bases within striking distance of the USSR. The country was being surrounded, once again. And then there was the A Bomb of course which the Soviet Union did not yet have.

As for Truman, it is very true that he had a very different attitude to that of FDR. Can his staunch anti-communism be explained as fear or as a means for imperialism? Again, the answer is probably both. The USSR was entrenching its influence in Europe and threatening the supply of Middle Eastern oil.

It was this fear factor that prevented the Cold War from ever becoming hot, but at the same time there remained a source of conflict as each competed for global supremacy essentially.

So what caused the Cold War? Simple answer is WW2, the decline of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet and American empires.

[FSL]

And the "lunch break" effectively lasted from 1920 to 1947. During this period Washington and Moscow either effectively ignored each other or worked together. They were not in direct competition

Why, yes. In fact Washington ignored Moscow so much that for half this period (until 1933), it was refusing to even recognise it existed.



You are suggesting the the President of the United States had no influence over the foreign policy pursued by the US government?

There's no question that personal relations between Stalin and FDR were warm - 'Uncle Joe' could be quite the charmer when he wanted - and that the absence of such a connection with Truman led to a noted chill in relations. Obviously this is not the only reason for the Cold War but the different personalities of both presidents was definitely a factor in turning two erstwhile allies against each other

One reasonable suggestion would be that it's the dominant faction of a country's capital that determines its foreign policy. Capitalists in WW2 wanted to rule out the prospect of a German-Japanese rule over them. They had different priorities after the war.

If the President had another opinion, they'd just start a campaign against him. If an event as big as the Cold War was a matter of different personalities, Truman would be impeached in no time.

[FSL]

Is there any evidence to suggest the Soviets supported the socialists in the Greek Civil War? Everything I've read about it was written before the fall of the USSR unfortunately, but the strong impression I have received is that Stalin did his best to discourage the Greek rebels


There was a motion in the UN security council in 1945 or 46 about the increasing levels of state-backed white terrorism. It was followed by another one from Ukraine but they were both turned down. Also, the USSR was opposed to british troops being stationed in Greece.
There was no military support but no one was asking for it or expecting it.




So what caused the Cold War? Simple answer is WW2, the decline of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet and American empires.


Mainly the same thing that causes class struggle, the antithesis between capital and labor. That and the fact that after WW2 and the many revolutions that followed it, Soviet Union and the socialist bloc were too important. As if having a nice, profitable business set up and then seeing there is this really stuborn union forming.

[Brother No. 1]

Is there any evidence to suggest the Soviets supported the socialists in the Greek Civil War? Everything I've read about it was written before the fall of the USSR unfortunately, but the strong impression I have received is that Stalin did his best to discourage the Greek rebels, much like how he discouraged the party in France.

Stalin's policy of the Greek Civil war was more or less to stay out of it for it had been after world war 2, the soviet economy was still rebuilding and this 'may' cause the west to attack the Socialist bloc as it was just starting. His Foriegn policy in the late 40s was basically to try and avoid a conflict with the Western powers but it came to a point where the capitalist powers would attack the Socialist blog during Korea and before.


So what caused the Cold War? Simple answer is WW2, the decline of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet and American empires.

As much as you try, this isnt the reason except if you want the bullshit reason. The Class struggle and struggle between the socialist and capitalist bloc basically started it. As Lenin said, the fallen class,capialist class, would do anything to retake power in these socialist nations by any means. Basically they did CIA interventions in Revolutions, in the Socialist States, etc. Press propaganda agaisnt the socialist bloc was also very popular.