- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What was the point of the Cold War?
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:16 pm
I get that it was a clash between ideologies, democracy vs communism, but why? What did either side stand to gain by spreading their governmental style? It seems absurd that the world lived a few decades on the brink of total annihilation because two countries were hell bent on spreading ideology.
Was the real culprit control of reasources? That would make more sense than political ideology. Why be at such a tense standoff because you think democracy or communism is better?
Edit: capitalism not democracy
Was the real culprit control of reasources? That would make more sense than political ideology. Why be at such a tense standoff because you think democracy or communism is better?
Edit: capitalism not democracy
This post was edited on 5/15/16 at 9:22 pm
32
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:18 pm to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:20 pm to DavidTheGnome
Dick measuring contest. The US won.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:26 pm to DavidTheGnome
Communism's goal was world conquest by brute force. They openly said so.
As far as annihilation, ideology had little to do with it. The norm throughout history has been that a bipolar world order (is two superpowers) made war more likely. That would be the case with hereditary monarchs or ayatollahs or a Greek/Roman style republic looking to expand its power. The real danger came from the weapons we had.
As far as annihilation, ideology had little to do with it. The norm throughout history has been that a bipolar world order (is two superpowers) made war more likely. That would be the case with hereditary monarchs or ayatollahs or a Greek/Roman style republic looking to expand its power. The real danger came from the weapons we had.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:27 pm to DavidTheGnome
The same reason two guys have conflicts... When you're the biggest and baddest, you don't always get along with the biggest and baddest
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:28 pm to DavidTheGnome
tl;dr: better red than dead
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:29 pm to DavidTheGnome
To fight global warming
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:31 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Communism's goal was world conquest by brute force. They openly said so.
In so many words pretty much this. It wasn't just ideologies. It was two ideologies that believed that they could not exist with the other, and that the other openly sought to destroy them.
Right or wrongly, read the Long Telegram. Written by a diplomat in Soviet Union right after WW2. He pretty much said they couldn't coexist and that the USSR would only understand the use of force. It pretty much became the base for containment.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:35 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:tl/dr
Right or wrongly, read the Long Telegram.
Cliffs?
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:35 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Communism's goal was world conquest by brute force. They openly said so.
By the postwar era the Soviets still talked about revolution, and assisted communist insurgencies when they could do it at little cost, but in practicality they were about maintaining the status quo. Stalin was paranoid about having a defensible buffer zone on his western border, hence the Warsaw Pact.
Say what you want about the Soviets, they were every bit as realistic about Mutually Assured Destruction as we were. Having lived through one world war on their own soil, they were not anxious to have another. Hence the prodding, the proxy wars, the saber rattling, but cooler heads on both sides prevailing when the Cold War threatened to turn hot.
That's why they were terrified of Reagan. He changed the paradigm, and they didn't know what to make of him. When he cracked a joke about "we're going to start bombing in five minutes," they believed him.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:38 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:there were two fundamentally different ideologies that were held by the 2 superpowers of the world. They couldn't face each other in open confrontation due to MAD so instead, they competed to spread their ways of life across the globe. That was the point if the cold war. They couldn't fight an outright war so instead, they fought for global influence
What was the point of the Cold War?
This post was edited on 5/15/16 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:40 pm to DavidTheGnome
This is a question for the liberal arts majors. The unemployed oil engineers will get mad you are asking a question that shows the liberal arts' value.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:40 pm to DavidTheGnome
To prolong global warming 
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:44 pm to Minnesota Tiger
quote:
This is a question for the liberal arts majors
This is a question liberal arts majors should be asking, and a lot of them still are, the ones who haven't gone down the SJW rabbit hole. Which, I think, are still a comparitively few. They're just noisy, which attracts the media.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:54 pm to DavidTheGnome
I'm no historian, but I'll take a crack at it.
Toward the end of WWII, the Soviets and Western powers already had a deep distrust of each other, and were bickering over conquered territory before the war was even over. Those disputes calcified into a divided Berlin and Germany and eventually much of Europe.
Having narrowly survived two massive invasions in a twenty year span (and a number of others before) the Soviets wanted an expanded territorial buffer against the West, and have sought a warm water port since forever. So they began to pursue policies to achieve those goals, sometimes invading, sometimes merely meddling in local politics, establishing puppet regimes, etc.
As they pursued their broadly defined interests, the West followed suit, and the game of Risk went on for decades, until the Soviet system eventually collapsed under the weight of its parasitic and corrupt bureaucracy.
Toward the end of WWII, the Soviets and Western powers already had a deep distrust of each other, and were bickering over conquered territory before the war was even over. Those disputes calcified into a divided Berlin and Germany and eventually much of Europe.
Having narrowly survived two massive invasions in a twenty year span (and a number of others before) the Soviets wanted an expanded territorial buffer against the West, and have sought a warm water port since forever. So they began to pursue policies to achieve those goals, sometimes invading, sometimes merely meddling in local politics, establishing puppet regimes, etc.
As they pursued their broadly defined interests, the West followed suit, and the game of Risk went on for decades, until the Soviet system eventually collapsed under the weight of its parasitic and corrupt bureaucracy.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 9:56 pm to DavidTheGnome
There's a great story in a Reagan biography. One of his advisors -- an economist -- is talking about the size of the Soviet economy. All in terms of GDP per capita, and nominal growth rates and all that. And it means nothing to Reagan. So he asks the guy to rephrase it.
And the guy says: Well, Mr. President, the entire Soviet economy is about the same size as the economy of New Jersey.
And Reagan is like: We're sitting here talking about New Jersey? I want you to come back here next week with a plan for how we're going to break them.
So that's what the Cold War was about. Breaking them.
Reagan did it in 8 years, with $2 Trillion
In the past 16 years, Bush and Obama spent $13 Trillion, and they haven't been able to break Isis.
And the guy says: Well, Mr. President, the entire Soviet economy is about the same size as the economy of New Jersey.
And Reagan is like: We're sitting here talking about New Jersey? I want you to come back here next week with a plan for how we're going to break them.
So that's what the Cold War was about. Breaking them.
Reagan did it in 8 years, with $2 Trillion
In the past 16 years, Bush and Obama spent $13 Trillion, and they haven't been able to break Isis.
Posted on 5/15/16 at 10:01 pm to Pankins
I would say stopping or slowing communist influence was worth the Cold War. We are talking about an ideaology that threatens to victimize and destroy anybody in its wake. That's like saying is it worth chemo to fight cancer. It's rough but it is by far the better alternative and absolutely necessary.
This post was edited on 5/15/16 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 5/15/16 at 10:04 pm to cubsfan5150
quote:
The same reason two guys have conflicts... When you're the biggest and baddest, you don't always get along with the biggest and baddest
I guess the OP never watched Red Dawn.
"Two toughest kids on the block, I guess. Sooner or later, they're gonna fight." - Colonel Andy Tanner
LC
Posted on 5/15/16 at 10:14 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
George Kennan, the American charge d’affaires in Moscow, sends an 8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union, and U.S. policy toward the communist state. Kennan’s analysis provided one of the most influential underpinnings for America’s Cold War policy of containment.
Kennan was among the U.S. diplomats to help establish the first American embassy in the Soviet Union in 1933. While he often expressed respect for the Russian people, his appraisal of the communist leadership of the Soviet Union became increasingly negative and harsh. Throughout World War II he was convinced that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s spirit of friendliness and cooperation with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was completely misplaced. Less than a year after Roosevelt’s death, Kennan, then serving as U.S. charge d’affaires in Moscow, released his opinions in what came to be known as the “long telegram.”
The lengthy memorandum began with the assertion that the Soviet Union could not foresee “permanent peaceful coexistence” with the West. This “neurotic view of world affairs” was a manifestation of the “instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” As a result, the Soviets were deeply suspicious of all other nations and believed that their security could only be found in “patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power.” Kennan was convinced that the Soviets would try to expand their sphere of influence, and he pointed to Iran and Turkey as the most likely immediate trouble areas. In addition, Kennan believed the Soviets would do all they could to “weaken power and influence of Western Powers on colonial backward, or dependent peoples.” Fortunately, although the Soviet Union was “impervious to logic of reason,” it was “highly sensitive to logic of force.” Therefore, it would back down “when strong resistance is encountered at any point.” The United States and its allies, he concluded, would have to offer that resistance.
That's from the history channel.
Full telegram
Bolded part was a significant part of US thinking in why it had to fight in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
This post was edited on 5/15/16 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 5/15/16 at 10:17 pm to DavidTheGnome
One of the main cornerstones of communism dating back to even before the Russian Revolution was the worldwide spread of Communism.
Before WWII, the prospect of this happening was not taken very seriously. Following WWII, this goal looked like it may happen. First of all, in all the countries the Soviets "liberated" from Germany, the Soviets set up Comminist governments. So by 1945, communism controlled half of Europe. Then starting with China in 1949, communism be gain to spread in Southeast Asia. This lead to wars in both Korea and Vietnam. Communists also seized control in Cambodia. At one point it looked like all of Southeast Asia would fall to the Communists. Then Cuba turned communist. This put a communist country right on the US doorstep. The 60's and 70's saw the spread of communism in Africa and Central America. All these communist "revolutions"across the third world were very much sponsored by the Soviet Union. And while all this was going on, Soviet influence in the Middle East was likewise growing as the communists poured military aid to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.
In short, not only did the Soviets believe in the concept of worldwide communism, they also worked to bring it about. The main thing that stood in their way was the United States of America and NATO. This is what lead to the Cold War.
Before WWII, the prospect of this happening was not taken very seriously. Following WWII, this goal looked like it may happen. First of all, in all the countries the Soviets "liberated" from Germany, the Soviets set up Comminist governments. So by 1945, communism controlled half of Europe. Then starting with China in 1949, communism be gain to spread in Southeast Asia. This lead to wars in both Korea and Vietnam. Communists also seized control in Cambodia. At one point it looked like all of Southeast Asia would fall to the Communists. Then Cuba turned communist. This put a communist country right on the US doorstep. The 60's and 70's saw the spread of communism in Africa and Central America. All these communist "revolutions"across the third world were very much sponsored by the Soviet Union. And while all this was going on, Soviet influence in the Middle East was likewise growing as the communists poured military aid to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.
In short, not only did the Soviets believe in the concept of worldwide communism, they also worked to bring it about. The main thing that stood in their way was the United States of America and NATO. This is what lead to the Cold War.
This post was edited on 5/15/16 at 10:31 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News