Was the Cold War necessary?

[Fiona]

This thread arises from a discussion in a chat room. It is not possible to explore an issue properly in that setting and such subjects are not appropriate there: so to those who were annoyed, I am sorry I raised it.

But it is a subject which interests me. I may be wrong but I have the impression that the perceptions of that conflict are quite different in parts of Europe and in the USA: and that this difference is quite important

Let me say at the outset that I hold no brief for the soviet union. It was a totalitarian empire with nothing to commend it for most of its history (simplistic and open to challenge, but my shorthand characterisation for this thread). I say this because I do not want anyone to get the impression that this is wider than it is: I am solely concerned with the justification for the cold war. That has been presented to me in terms of a "threat" from the soviets: and that is the part I cannot easily accept

It seems to me that part of my difficulty is, as ever, one of definition. What is meant by the word "threat"?. I suppose that it does too much work really. Are we talking about a military threat? a threat to our way of life? or what?

The most obvious assumption is that we are talking about a military threat: there was an arms race which persisted for years and which can only be justified if a military threat was in existence. I am not able to see that there was ever any likelihood of a soviet attack, and so this makes little sense to me. What was the fear?

At the end of WW2 Russia was devastated. They were not long out of a feudal system: they had faced military and economic attacks after the revolution and they had a vast country in need of serious modernisation. The leadership under Stalin were not really ideologues: Stalin was an old fashioned dictator intent on power for himself. He ruled by mass terror but I see no reason to believe that he would risk military adventure against the west where he could have no possibility of success. They had not the will nor the manpower nor the material to attack Europe nor America.

At the same time, and unlike Western powers, they had real reason to suppose that they were under threat. White armies had tried to overthrow the government quite recently: Western leaders had supported this,not least Churchill, who had supported direct intervention against the revolution during the 1920's and was a cold warrior par excellence after 1945. They were exhausted and they did not have a nuclear bomb: while the demonstration of that weapon in Japan showed that the could have no security without it, if they percieved a genuine military threat to their existence: as was more than plausible.

Truman characterised the soviet union as "evil". This seems to be justiified because of the failure to allow self determination for the baltic states and that was indeed reprehensible: though not so obviously different to the US attitude to latin america so far as I can see. There was doubt even in Churchill's mind as to whether the soviet imperial attitude to those states was inidcative of plans for world domination or the pragmatic actions of state which feared for its survival: there is at least a question there

The placing of military installations in countries around russia was always going to reinforce soviet fears: if not, why did the USA react so strongly to what appears to be an exactly similar move by the soviets in the cuban missile crisis? Again I cannot see anything unreasonable in the soviet perception of a direct western threat to its existence; where is any parallel and reasonable fear on the other side?

On the other hand it might be that the fear was to our way of life? But without military action it is difficult to see how that was supposed to happen. If it is argued that peoples around the world would adopt the soviet model voluntarily I am afraid I cannot see anything wrong with that: the "domino theory" seemed to me to be profoundly flawed because it was predicated on the premise that it was right to intervene to prevent a spread of communism even where that was the path chosen by sovereign peoples. Certainly one can argue that once adopted all democracy would be over and they could never make that choice again: that might even be true. But what business is it of the us or the uk or australia? I cannot see any justification for such a presumption.

Or it might be argued that the spread would be by military conflict within countries: well civil war has always been problematic for international law: sovereignty dictates we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. That idea is being challenged of course: but we should not overturn it lightly IMO.

Perhaps communism was to be spread by war between nations? Again wars start for all sorts of reasons and alliances are made and military actions undertaken: but pre-emptive action on the basis of such a fear is a little strange to me: it is certainly justifiable on the basis of a direct threat to any county's own interest but again I see no prospect of military imposition of communism on any part of the western world outside of the "sphere of influence". I do not mean to diminish the horror of what took place within those countries which came under the soviet empire: but again, what happened in latin america was not so great either. If it was not so bad does that make the principle different? if it does where is the line drawn? And what evidence is there of any intent to expand which is not paralleled by actions of the other side?

This article is from the Spectator, a publication which is largely conservative in its political stance

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...as-bogus.thtml

I include it because it seems to me to show that the ideas outlined above are mainstream in the uk and I suspect also in europe. A lot of people do accept the soviet threat, certainly: but many do not, and this is not an uncommon discussion where I live. Maybe this is partly because scotland is generally a little more left wing than other parts of the UK:I do not know

[Darat]

The article states that:

"In short, Russian interference in countries essential to its safety was evil. But exclusive US domination of its own sphere of influence was righteous. The Russians must have thought that this was a fine piece of humbug."

The Russians may have thought "humbug" but they were as you state wrong; the US "domination" was based on the principles (if not always the practice) of free determination and what we all broadly recognise as "western values". The USSR was based as you say on the whims of a very evil dictator who was totally and utterly ruthless and totally opposed to "Western" values. He had access to considerable resources and it was obvious by the end of WWII quite capable of using what military strength he had to impose his dictatorship wherever he could.

From those roots I can't see that the cold war was anything but a reaction to the USSR and in particular Stalin's leadership. Of course both sides later on used the other as the big-bad-bogeyman and I am sure that at times the perceived threat was used as an excuse but the fundamentals are that the USSR was an expansionist regime and an anathema to anyone who shares what we can loosely describe as "western values".

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

At the end of WW2 Russia was devastated. They were not long out of a feudal system: they had faced military and economic attacks after the revolution and they had a vast country in need of serious modernisation. The leadership under Stalin were not really ideologues: Stalin was an old fashioned dictator intent on power for himself. He ruled by mass terror but I see no reason to believe that he would risk military adventure against the west where he could have no possibility of success. They had not the will nor the manpower nor the material to attack Europe nor America.

Why do you say that? They had the will, materiel, and manpower to subjugate eastern Europe. What makes you think they had no further ambitions?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Fiona

. . . I see no prospect of military imposition of communism on any part of the western world outside of the "sphere of influence".

A question: Doesn't this ignore how those countries got into the "sphere of influence" in the first place?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do you say that? They had the will, materiel, and manpower to subjugate eastern Europe. What makes you think they had no further ambitions?

Russia was indeed devastated at the end of WW2 but they had one insitutional that was very powerful: The Soviet Army (include the Sovier Air force in this).
If Russia was so damn weak, why, in 1948, were they already making moves against the West in the Berlin Crisis?
If a lot of Europe is buying into the "Moral Equivilence" argument, then Europe is in worse trouble then I thought. Have fun dealing with a resurgent Russia ,guys.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

A question: Doesn't this ignore how those countries got into the "sphere of influence" in the first place?

Stalin merely "helped" the oppressed proletariat of Eastern Europe to overthrow their capitalists masters.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

The most obvious assumption is that we are talking about a military threat: there was an arms race which persisted for years and which can only be justified if a military threat was in existence. I am not able to see that there was ever any likelihood of a soviet attack, and so this makes little sense to me.

An invasion of Europe was unlikely. But that assessment can only really be made given the situation as it was (including, for example, NATO military capability and posture), which included the cold war. In the absence of the cold war, can we really conclude the same thing? No, we cannot: in the absence of a serious deterrent, maybe they would have considered an attack. We do not know.

Quote:

He ruled by mass terror but I see no reason to believe that he would risk military adventure against the west where he could have no possibility of success. They had not the will nor the manpower nor the material to attack Europe nor America.

The USSR most definitely had the manpower to attack Europe. Manpower was never what they were short of.

Quote:

At the same time, and unlike Western powers, they had real reason to suppose that they were under threat.

They were under threat. Every dictatorship is always under existential threat by the mere existence of free nations. There was never a way to avoid this asymmetry, and so no reason to act as if not threatening them was ever an option.

Quote:

Truman characterised the soviet union as "evil". This seems to be justiified because of the failure to allow self determination for the baltic states and that was indeed reprehensible: though not so obviously different to the US attitude to latin america so far as I can see.

Compare "attitudes" all you want, but US action in latin america, for all its problems, doesn't compare to the USSR's oppression of its immediate neighbors.

Quote:

The placing of military installations in countries around russia was always going to reinforce soviet fears: if not, why did the USA react so strongly to what appears to be an exactly similar move by the soviets in the cuban missile crisis?

Just a military base wouldn't have been that big a deal. A nuclear missile site was. The reason was rather obvious to everyone at the time: it would mean that a nuclear attack could be launched against the US with very little time to respond, unlike ICBMS launched from the USSR. So there's not nearly so much parallel as you presume. In fact, the only real parallel was US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. And the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis did, in fact, include the removal of those missiles, though that part of the deal wasn't made public at the time.

Quote:

On the other hand it might be that the fear was to our way of life? But without military action it is difficult to see how that was supposed to happen.

You seem to have ignored the USSR's sponsorship of communist insurgencies throughout the world. A significant number of these were successful. Had more of them been successful, the possible economic impact could have been enormous. Which in turn would have seriously constrained our own military power.

Quote:

If it is argued that peoples around the world would adopt the soviet model voluntarily I am afraid I cannot see anything wrong with that

This is basically irrelevant, since people never have (and probably never will) adopt such a model in the absence of violence or its threat. Communists have never taken power without violence. Never.

Quote:

well civil war has always been problematic for international law: sovereignty dictates we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. That idea is being challenged of course: but we should not overturn it lightly IMO.

We didn't overturn it, it was never really in operation to begin with. The USSR sponsored insurgencies: it created many of the internal conflicts we subsequently interfered with. The question of whether and how to interfere in any particular case might be tricky, but to suppose we should simply abstain when our adversaries never would is not being principled, it is being naive.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Darat

The Russians may have thought "humbug" but they were as you state wrong; the US "domination" was based on the principles (if not always the practice) of free determination and what we all broadly recognise as "western values".

I am not so sure about that, Darat. It is difficult for me to see any difference between the soviet view of their right to determine limits to the sovereignty of the states close to it, and the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine. It is certainly my understanding that the US has directly intervened to overthrow democratically elected governments (for example in Guatamal, Chile and Nicaragua. That is not in keeping with what I broadly recognise as democratic values.

At the same time I find it incomprehensible in a way that I do not with the soviet horrors: Russia has been subjected to invasion and war several times and in addition it was, until recently, feudal in character. By contrast I can see no direct threat to United States integrity. It is certainly true that history does not justify the oppression of sovereign states: but it explains it to some extent. What parallel excuse does the US have? Humbug does seem a reasonable assessment: though I imply no particular criticsim: humbug is the usual condition for international relations so far as I can see.

Quote:

The USSR was based as you say on the whims of a very evil dictator who was totally and utterly ruthless and totally opposed to "Western" values.

Certainly

Quote:

He had access to considerable resources and it was obvious by the end of WWII quite capable of using what military strength he had to impose his dictatorship wherever he could.

No I do not think that can be demonstrated. He did have resources but in comparison with the needs of the country they were not particularly substantial: this seems self evident since the soviets could not finance the arms race and modernise effectively at the same time. I do not know what you mean when you say he would use military strength to impose his dictatorship wherever he could. Soviet leaders did do this within those countries they conceived as essential buffers in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, for example. Again I do not see much difference between those and the actions in south america referred to above.

Quote:

From those roots I can't see that the cold war was anything but a reaction to the USSR and in particular Stalin's leadership.

It was predicated on an assumption of a will to world domination which I do not see as evidenced. Stalin and his successors were certainly dictators, who wished to preserve their own power; but also to ensure the security of the state so as to enjoy it. What country is any different?

Quote:

Of course both sides later on used the other as the big-bad-bogeyman and I am sure that at times the perceived threat was used as an excuse but the fundamentals are that the USSR was an expansionist regime and an anathema to anyone who shares what we can loosely describe as "western values".

We will agree to differ for now, though you may be right

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do you say that? They had the will, materiel, and manpower to subjugate eastern Europe. What makes you think they had no further ambitions?

What makes you think they did, any more than any other powerful state? The relationship with eastern europe is one of empire so far as I can tell and it goes back centuries: that is never pretty. But the old russia did not establish an empire beyond that (extremely large) region, during the period when the british and the french and the portuguese et al did. They were not in a position to do so perhaps: but what is there to show they wanted to after Peter the Great? That is a genuine question for I do not know

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

A question: Doesn't this ignore how those countries got into the "sphere of influence" in the first place?

No more than how the south american countries got into the US sphere of influence, I think. They got there because a big neighbour was twitchy

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Fiona

What makes you think they did, any more than any other powerful state? The relationship with eastern europe is one of empire so far as I can tell and it goes back centuries: that is never pretty. But the old russia did not establish an empire beyond that (extremely large) region, during the period when the british and the french and the portuguese et al did. They were not in a position to do so perhaps: but what is there to show they wanted to after Peter the Great? That is a genuine question for I do not know

um...
The fact that they actually did make a start on it? (See Berlin Airlift, Estonia, Latvia, Norway....)

[Skeptic]

Nothing is necessary except for logical implication. The cold war wasn't necessary if one was willing to let the USSR take over Europe and most of the rest of the world. If one wanted to stop that, however, yes, the cold war was necessary.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by dudalb

If Russia was so damn weak, why, in 1948, were they already making moves against the West in the Berlin Crisis?

I think it was partly because they were so damn weak and so afraid of a strong germany - for rather obvious reasons.

Why do you think it was?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I think it was partly because they were so damn weak and so afraid of a strong germany - for rather obvious reasons.

Why do you think it was?

Stalin was seeing just how far he could push the West.
And you know you are coming off like a apologist for the Soviet union?
And they were NOT Militarily weak. Weak economy, yes, but to portray the Soviet Union as being "weak" is just plain silly.
You are buying into this nonsense being peddled by the Neo Marxists, who have a ideological reason for whitewashing the Soviet Union.

[gumboot]

Er... someone seems to be missing the elephant in the room here. What came immediately before the Cold War? World War Two? And what was so special about it? A single maniacal dictator used an appealing ideology to wage horrific war on the entire globe. Looking back, in hindsight, I think often we forget just how close we came to defeat in WW2.

Now, after WW2, you have the USSR; a nation slavishly following the will of a single maniacal dictator, who was using an appealing ideology in an attempt to seize control of large territories.

Call me crazy, but I just can't help but think the allies saw the USSR as a new Nazi Germany. And given how the USSR treated the countries they invaded, yes that's a far comparison.

Let's not forget that. The USA invaded western Europe, liberated it, and then released it to itself. The USSR invaded Eastern Europe and built a wall around it to keep everyone in.

Do you really need to look any deeper than that to see if the Cold War was justified? I am willing to bet that in the 1950s and 1960s the allies were willing to do nearly anything to avoid a repeat of WW2. I can't say I blame them.

What the allies learned is that you cannot contain an ideology with appeasement and treaties. It will swallow the whole world if you let it. Instead you must meet it with an iron will, and refuse to allow it to spread.

Sadly, it's a lesson we appear to have forgotten, at our peril.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by gumboot

...
Let's not forget that. The USA invaded western Europe, liberated it, and then released it to itself. The USSR invaded Eastern Europe and built a wall around it to keep everyone in.

But we're EEVIL!

Quote:

Do you really need to look any deeper than that to see if the Cold War was justified? I am willing to bet that in the 1950s and 1960s the allies were willing to do nearly anything to avoid a repeat of WW2. I can't say I blame them.

What the allies learned is that you cannot contain an ideology with appeasement and treaties. It will swallow the whole world if you let it. Instead you must meet it with an iron will, and refuse to allow it to spread.

Sadly, it's a lesson we appear to have forgotten, at our peril.

Only some people have. Unfortunately, they seem to be in control ovver on this side...

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

It was predicated on an assumption of a will to world domination which I do not see as evidenced.

Um... yeah. You might want to read up on what the communists were actually saying. Their desire for world domination was one of their most blatant features. Sure, it was always masked in talk of the proletariat, but it was always, always expansionist and universalist in ideology. And you can talk about buffers all you want to in regards to eastern Europe, but that's got nothing to do with their push to turn east Asia communist. There was no threat from that side.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Fiona

No more than how the south american countries got into the US sphere of influence, I think. They got there because a big neighbour was twitchy

I don't recall the tanks rolling into Canada and Mexico after WWII, but okay. If you want to create moral equivalencies that badly, who am I to stand in the way?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

An invasion of Europe was unlikely. But that assessment can only really be made given the situation as it was (including, for example, NATO military capability and posture), which included the cold war. In the absence of the cold war, can we really conclude the same thing? No, we cannot: in the absence of a serious deterrent, maybe they would have considered an attack. We do not know.

Agreed. It is certainly not self-evident that the cold war was necessary. Given the enormous implications of it that is regrettable

Quote:

The USSR most definitely had the manpower to attack Europe. Manpower was never what they were short of.

It is estimated that 13% of the population died during ww2, and that the population in 1939 was about 168,500,000. That is not an insignificant loss and military deaths accounted for 10,700,000 of the total of about 23 million. In the 1991 census there were 293,000,000 population and the labour force was 152,300,000 - about 51%. I imagine the labour force requirement as a proportion of total population was very different in 1939, but I cannot find the figures. However you look at it they lost a lot of people and their economy was shattered. I am not sure it looks as if they had a lot of spare manpower and I am pretty certain they would have been sick of war

Quote:

They were under threat. Every dictatorship is always under existential threat by the mere existence of free nations. There was never a way to avoid this asymmetry, and so no reason to act as if not threatening them was ever an option.

That is a bit philosophical for my taste, and it depends on a series of assumptions which I think are beyond my scope

. The USA also believes it is under threat from what I can gather, and did so at the time, if the justification for the cold war is to be accepted. But the USA is not a dictatorship. How do you account for that? Is it your proposition that the USA believes it is under threat because that is true: but dictatorships believe they are under threat for imaginary or radically different reasons? I do not follow this reasoning

Quote:

Compare "attitudes" all you want, but US action in latin america, for all its problems, doesn't compare to the USSR's oppression of its immediate neighbors.

I think we will have to differ here

Quote:

Just a military base wouldn't have been that big a deal. A nuclear missile site was. The reason was rather obvious to everyone at the time: it would mean that a nuclear attack could be launched against the US with very little time to respond, unlike ICBMS launched from the USSR. So there's not nearly so much parallel as you presume. In fact, the only real parallel was US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. And the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis did, in fact, include the removal of those missiles, though that part of the deal wasn't made public at the time.

That seems to me to be an exact parallel. But I do not think it is all, is it? we seem to have quite a few american nuclear weapons just down the road from me. Perhaps they cannot reach russia? if not what are they there for? I genuinely do not know so I will be glad if you can explain why they do not count

Quote:

You seem to have ignored the USSR's sponsorship of communist insurgencies throughout the world. A significant number of these were successful. Had more of them been successful, the possible economic impact could have been enormous. Which in turn would have seriously constrained our own military power.

I did not mention their sponsorship of insurgencies in my OP. I did not mention the US sponsorship of insurgencies either. Both do this and both are sometimes successful. I do not support it in either case.

Quote:

This is basically irrelevant, since people never have (and probably never will) adopt such a model in the absence of violence or its threat. Communists have never taken power without violence. Never.

Allende in Chile? Admittedly he stood on a socialist platform with a left wing coalition in support. But he was openly marxist and he did win the election

Sandanistas in Nicaragua?

United Socialist Party of Venezuala?

It is certainly true that there has often been violence attending revolution, and that is what you would expect if you subscribe to a marxist analysis. Power is not given away, normally. Should a people choose a communist model in a democratic country the evidence so far seems to show that choice will be resisted with violence, too. Whether it will or should happen is irrelevant, as you say.

But I think my point is made by your earlier statement, because you said "Had more of them been successful, the possible economic impact could have been enormous. Which in turn would have seriously constrained our own military power." To me this seems to imply that resisting the choice of a people to elect a communist regime would be legitimate on the grounds of our own security and prosperity. If I am misrepresenting you and that is not what you intend then I am sorry but that is how I read it.

Quote:

We didn't overturn it, it was never really in operation to begin with. The USSR sponsored insurgencies: it created many of the internal conflicts we subsequently interfered with. The question of whether and how to interfere in any particular case might be tricky, but to suppose we should simply abstain when our adversaries never would is not being principled, it is being naive.

And the USA sponsored dictatorships. You are, of course correct: the big powers always interfere in the affairs of other countries in their own interest. Doesn't matter what international law says. But I don't think it works out well and I think, like the rules applying to what can and can't be done in war, that we should uphold those principles and we should take seriously any breach. I do not want a free for all if there must be war and I do not want "might is right" in that arena or in the field of international relations.

It is arguable that it cannot be prevented: neither can theft. That doesn't make it right to steal

[Region Rat]

This is a very strange thread. The idea that there is some type of equivalency between the USSR's actions and the USA's actions is really turning history on its head.

The mere fact that the USSR built walls to keep their population inside, and shot people who tried to leave, is enough evidence for me.

For all our (USA) supposed oppression of Latin America, you don't see a mass migration away from the 'mother country', do you? In fact, its quite the opposite. Why do you think that is?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

The USA also believes it is under threat from what I can gather, and did so at the time, if the justification for the cold war is to be accepted. But the USA is not a dictatorship. How do you account for that?

The USSR was fomenting unrest in democracies across the world. Communists had stolen the secrets of the atomic bomb from us, and had walled off eastern Europe from the rest of the world. Are you really not sure why we might have considered them a threat?

Quote:

Is it your proposition that the USA believes it is under threat because that is true: but dictatorships believe they are under threat for imaginary or radically different reasons? I do not follow this reasoning

Evidently not. The inherent threat that democracies pose to dictatorships is not imaginary at all, it is very real. And precisely because it is real, the converse is true too: dictatorships are necessarily hostile to democracies, because they must be in order to survive as dictatorships.

Quote:

That seems to me to be an exact parallel. But I do not think it is all, is it? we seem to have quite a few american nuclear weapons just down the road from me. Perhaps they cannot reach russia? if not what are they there for? I genuinely do not know so I will be glad if you can explain why they do not count

I do not know where you live. But the point is not, and never was, that nuclear missiles could reach the US or the USSR. Missiles from the continental US can reach the USSR, and the converse as well. But they have to travel quite some distance, which means that there's a lot of warning time. Warning time matters, because it means that there is time to get your bombers in the air and launch your own missiles in retaliation. Which significantly decreases the value of a first-strike attack. Cut down that warning time significantly, and you up the value of a first-strike attack. We had damned good reason to be worried about that. The USSR had reason to be worried about that in regards to Turkey too, and as already stated, we pulled our missiles out of Turkey after the Cuban missile crisis.

Quote:

Allende in Chile? Admittedly he stood on a socialist platform with a left wing coalition in support. But he was openly marxist and he did win the election

I didn't say they didn't win elections, I said they never came to power without using violence. Winning elections doesn't mean you didn't use violence. Violence can be a very effective weapon in shaping elections.

Quote:

And the USA sponsored dictatorships. You are, of course correct: the big powers always interfere in the affairs of other countries in their own interest. Doesn't matter what international law says. But I don't think it works out well

The point isn't whether or not it works out well, it's whether it works out better or worse than the alternatives. Letting the USSR sponsor insurgencies unopposed wouldn't have worked out well at all. I do not say this to suggest that we always took the best possible course of action, but to point out that actions have to be evaluated in light of alternatives, and the alternatives were frequently grim.

Quote:

I do not want a free for all if there must be war and I do not want "might is right"

Whether or not you want that, that's the way the world operates. And always will operate as long as there are dictatorships, because dictatorships will never recognize any other right. Yes, I'd like it if we could talk nicely to dictatorships and convince them to behave by showing them the wisdom of peace. Doesn't work, though. As Churchill said, "I hope I shall never see the day when the Force of Right is deprived of the Right of Force."

[jj]

It was not NECESSARY, but one has to ask what the outcome would have been if it hadn't happened.

[geni]

No. A few well placed nukes in 1946 would have settled the issue.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Er... someone seems to be missing the elephant in the room here. What came immediately before the Cold War? World War Two? And what was so special about it? A single maniacal dictator used an appealing ideology to wage horrific war on the entire globe. Looking back, in hindsight, I think often we forget just how close we came to defeat in WW2.

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Looking back, in hindsight, I think often we forget just how close we came to defeat in WW2.

Not sure I accept that proposition. Given the industrial capacities of both the United States and Russia, the defeat of the Axis powers in the longer term seems inevitable.

Originally Posted by gumboot

The USA invaded western Europe, liberated it...

Uh, not by itself it didn't. It had some help from its other western allies. It is worth noting their efforts as well

[moon1969]

No of course not. Why would defeating communism be important to the jews? You know to people like Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky.

[moon1969]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Not sure I accept that proposition. Given the industrial capacities of both the United States and Russia, the defeat of the Axis powers in the longer term seems inevitable.





Uh, not by itself it didn't. It had some help from its other western allies. It is worth noting their efforts as well

Seems inevitable? Don"t make me laugh. Stalin started the Winter War and look how bad Stalin was defeated. If Hitler would have attacked USA and UK in 1939 than Hitler would have won and the German invasion of Poland on 1939 proves that. So Hitler did allmost win. Hitler made the mistake giving Stalin too much time.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Not sure I accept that proposition. Given the industrial capacities of both the United States and Russia, the defeat of the Axis powers in the longer term seems inevitable.

Britain was dangerously close to losing before the US even entered the war. Had the summer of 1940 been a little bit different (for example, if Germany had kept targeting the British military instead of vengefully targeting cities, and not foolishly decided to invade the USSR) Operation Sea Lion may have occurred and been successful.

At that point, only British overseas territories would have been left and they were under attack by Japan.

Yes, they did come dangerously close to losing.

[moon1969]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

So why didn"t FDR do anything to help Finland during the Winter War? Stalin attacked a small nation. The brother of my grandfather died in the Winter War. My great grandmother was evacuated from Karelia. Yeah the russians caused alot of pain to Finland during the Winter War and yet when WW2 ended Finland had to pay 300 million dollars to Russia. Maybe nothing would have happend if Russia would have not started the Winter War? Well yes dictator Stalin was very evil.

[moon1969]

I live at the border between Russia and Finland. Because of the Winter War pretty scared that russians will try something like that again. Last time they faked the Shelling of Mainila and after that started the Winter War. But maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe Russia does not want the new Winter War but since after russians did the Shelling of Mainila it is kind of hard to trust them.

[moon1969]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

But if something like the Winter War happend again would America help Finland even if Finland is not a member of NATO? And after what russians did to Chechnya. Scary stuff.

[moon1969]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

How would the jews help the finns if something like the Winter War happend again? Just look at what russians did to Chechnya. Finland wants no trouble with Russia and just wants to live in peace. But some how I think that many russians are racist against finns and estonians.

[twinstead]

moon1969, asking multiple vaguely related questions instead of simply acknowledging WildCat's point that Hitler and Stalin did indeed sign a non-aggression pact and the Soviet Union was indeed an aggressor in the beginning of the war is duly noted by the lurkers.

Carry on

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

I agree 100%, Wildcat, but it has reached the point where I don't like to mention the words "Finland" "Aggresion", and "Soviet Union" in the same sentence because a tirade of Anti Semetic nonsense from a certain poster is sure to follow.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by moon1969

How would the jews help the finns if something like the Winter War happend again? Just look at what russians did to Chechnya. Finland wants no trouble with Russia and just wants to live in peace. But some how I think that many russians are racist against finns and estonians.

And certain Finns seem to be racist against Jews....

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by moon1969

So why didn"t FDR do anything to help Finland during the Winter War? Stalin attacked a small nation. The brother of my grandfather died in the Winter War. My great grandmother was evacuated from Karelia. Yeah the russians caused alot of pain to Finland during the Winter War and yet when WW2 ended Finland had to pay 300 million dollars to Russia. Maybe nothing would have happend if Russia would have not started the Winter War? Well yes dictator Stalin was very evil.

[moon1969]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That reminds me, it wasn't a "single maniacal dictator" who started WWII in Europe. It was a pair of maniacal dictators - Hitler and his one-time ally Stalin who simultaneously invaded Poland in September 1939. The USSR then went on to invade Finland.

The USSR was an aggressor during WWII, and after.

I must say I am sorry what I said about FDR. FDR never declared a war against Finland. Winston Churchill did declare a war against Finland. So looks like after all FDR did alot to help Finland.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Britain was dangerously close to losing before the US even entered the war. Had the summer of 1940 been a little bit different (for example, if Germany had kept targeting the British military instead of vengefully targeting cities, and not foolishly decided to invade the USSR) Operation Sea Lion may have occurred and been successful.

Britain was never that close to losing the Battle of Britain. From most of the material I have read, the idea that Fighter Command was on the verge of collapse and was saved only by the German switch to city attacks is more myth than fact. They were hard-pressed at times, certainly, but on the brink of defeat the RAF was not.

They were outproducing the Germans in fighters throughout the battle, and while pilot losses were a concern at some points they were not insurmountable. As it was, some of the reason for pilot shortages was due to administrative issues rather than combat losses; they were also slow to react to such administrative problems which naturally didn't help. There were also fighters and pilots sitting out the battle in 13 Group which could have been brought in. Had attacks on the southern airfields proven too disruptive, the RAF could have pulled its fighters back to 12 Group's area, out of range of escorted bomber attack. This would have impacted its ability to intercept incoming German raids, but it would still have been able to respond while keeping its forces safe.

Some analysis I've read suggests the only real chance the Luftwaffe had to win the battle would have been to knock out the Chain Home radar network. That would have deprived Fighter Command of the invaluable early detection of incoming raids and ability to precisely vector in fighter forces for successful interceptions. But the radar stations were extremely difficult targets to put out of action for any length of time, so the chances of a conclusive campaign against them were remote.

But even had the Luftwaffe won the battle, the chances of Sea Lion succeeding were slim at best. The German army had little experience in conducting seaborne invasions, nor the proper equipment to do so. It lacked suitable landing craft, and most of the invasion fleet would have consisted of river barges which would have to have been towed across the Channel by tugboats at a speed little better than three knots. Just a handful of Royal Navy destroyers getting in amongst such a troop and horse/vehicle transport fleet would have easily decimated it. Germany would have needed not just air superiority, but air supremacy in order to eliminate the threat from agile, fast-moving destroyers. And even then, the prospect of invasion likely would have seen the Royal Navy committed to the action regardless of the potential losses.

The threat of successfully blockading Britain via U-boats was more serious, but even then, the German navy had, at the start of the war, only about one-third the number of submarines it was estimated would be needed to completely cut off Britain's maritime trade.

So, going back to what I said initially, as long as the United States and Russia are in the war, their combined industrial capacity means victory for the Allies in the long run. The war was a battle of attrition, and that favoured the Allies.

[Texas]

Was the cold war avoidable? I don't get the premise of this OP. We could have done what Patton wanted and immediately attack the Soviets since it was crystal clear that the US and the USSR would emerge as the 2 super powers and we had the nuclear advantage. However, that was not an option given the carnage of WW2. Once the Soviets got their own nukes there was no way that the Cold War would not become a reality. Just be glad that it was a Cold War and not a hot WW3.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by moon1969

I live at the border between Russia and Finland. Because of the Winter War pretty scared that russians will try something like that again. Last time they faked the Shelling of Mainila and after that started the Winter War. But maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe Russia does not want the new Winter War but since after russians did the Shelling of Mainila it is kind of hard to trust them.

Perhaps they fear another Simo Häyhä.

Jeez, that man was terrifying.