- 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
re: What was the point of the Cold War?
Posted on 5/16/16 at 11:42 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 5/16/16 at 11:42 am to DavidTheGnome
Capitalism v Socialism
Democracy v Communism
The US saw the rapid expanse of the Soviet union post WW2 and did what they could to counter it.
Soviet Union was spreading very rapidly and increasing it's sphere of influence and most importantly increasing resources. A world in which the most powerful country was a Dictatorship ran by psuedo-socialist was a terrible thought to most. The only way to beat them was to force them to spend all their money on the military.
It was a waste in retrospect, but the possibility that the world could end, or that Russia would invade was a real one in the 50's and 60's. If the Cold War really saved us from Communism or war then it was worth it.
Though if we are playing Captain Hindsight, we should have listened to Patton and destroyed the Red Army in Germany, Eastern Europe and Manchuria immediately after VJ day.
Should have kicked them when they were down and put in a pro-western government, maybe reestablish monarchy (constitutional) Then following that war the Golden Age the US would have entered would have been unprecedented if there were no other superpowers until the emergence of the Chinese in the 80's and 90's.
Democracy v Communism
The US saw the rapid expanse of the Soviet union post WW2 and did what they could to counter it.
Soviet Union was spreading very rapidly and increasing it's sphere of influence and most importantly increasing resources. A world in which the most powerful country was a Dictatorship ran by psuedo-socialist was a terrible thought to most. The only way to beat them was to force them to spend all their money on the military.
It was a waste in retrospect, but the possibility that the world could end, or that Russia would invade was a real one in the 50's and 60's. If the Cold War really saved us from Communism or war then it was worth it.
Though if we are playing Captain Hindsight, we should have listened to Patton and destroyed the Red Army in Germany, Eastern Europe and Manchuria immediately after VJ day.
Should have kicked them when they were down and put in a pro-western government, maybe reestablish monarchy (constitutional) Then following that war the Golden Age the US would have entered would have been unprecedented if there were no other superpowers until the emergence of the Chinese in the 80's and 90's.
0
Posted on 5/16/16 at 12:38 pm to Hogwarts
This post was edited on 4/8/19 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 5/16/16 at 12:41 pm to DavidTheGnome
Every conflict ever is about control of resources. Tell your Poli Sci 101 professor to suck on that.
Posted on 5/16/16 at 12:44 pm to DavidTheGnome
To a certain degree, it was mutual east/west mistrust. Stalin was paranoid, reinforced by the fact that paranoia served him well, on a personal level. He disregarded allied warnings about an impending German attack and was generally mistrustful and close to the vest with his cards even during a war of life and death for the Soviet Union.
So, afterwards, he didn't believe that NATO was merely meant as an expression of making the WWII alliance a more or less permanent military engagement to prevent yet another world war. Despite a fairly solid history of maintaining "communism in one country" - the west couldn't help but notice all the post-war expansion the Soviets did in Eastern Europe - to be fair, they'd been invaded by Germany 2 times in 30 years at that point, but it seemed a little too greedy, in that he took all he could possibly get his hands on, replaced all the governments with communist structures essentially identical to the Soviet's and controlled them essentially as a colonial power.
So, in this environment of mutual distrust, despite the greatest positive collaboration in wartime in all of human history, the Cold War was inevitable - even without nuclear weapons and ICBMs, although those certainly didn't make things a lot better on the trust side, now did they?
So, afterwards, he didn't believe that NATO was merely meant as an expression of making the WWII alliance a more or less permanent military engagement to prevent yet another world war. Despite a fairly solid history of maintaining "communism in one country" - the west couldn't help but notice all the post-war expansion the Soviets did in Eastern Europe - to be fair, they'd been invaded by Germany 2 times in 30 years at that point, but it seemed a little too greedy, in that he took all he could possibly get his hands on, replaced all the governments with communist structures essentially identical to the Soviet's and controlled them essentially as a colonial power.
So, in this environment of mutual distrust, despite the greatest positive collaboration in wartime in all of human history, the Cold War was inevitable - even without nuclear weapons and ICBMs, although those certainly didn't make things a lot better on the trust side, now did they?
Posted on 5/17/16 at 8:47 am to Tigeralum2008
Spoken like a true neocon. The communist threat was funded by the same banks that own the weapons makers
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News