A Mirror of Vietnam?

[LeopoldCrank]

"What people forget is that sometimes you need to be detached from events to make an informed decision. For instance, anyone living in the U.S.A. during the 1950s would believe, whole-heartedly, that America's only reason for their involvement in the Cold War was the detainment of Communism. But now, with facts and detachment, we can say that it in fact had a lot to do with power and money. They couldn't know, because they are too personally invested in those events."

 

Having actually grown up in the 50's this little bit of revisionist perspective of history really amused me. You might want to review the advance of Soviet client states from the period 1945 to 1965. It was an ideological conflict that we won in the 90's which gives you the freedom to see it as a esoteric trifle. The Cold War was fought globally through surrogate states and so it was very real and not the least bit about money , everything in one way or another is about power. Participation in an event gives one a perspective that is absent from academic review of the same event, granted given enough distance such as 100 yrs it can be put in proper perspective with the flow of history.

 

Well, it certainly wasn't ideology for Stalin. Simply a convenient label to hide behind. Certainly by the 1980s, ideology had very little relevance at all, albeit for the benefits it held for the political rhetoric of Reagan and Bush. You just have to look at the autocratic reign of Stalin, completely unsocialist, and Gorbachev's later policies of democratizatia, as well as Glasnost and Perestroika to see how little relevance it played throughout their fight. As the Dean of American Journalists, Walter Lippman said at the time, "I was the might of the Red army, not the ideology of Karl Marx, which enabled the Russian government to expand its borders".

Plus, the fight between Russia and America was inevitable, because of the huge amounts of power they were amassing. As early as the 1830s, the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville had already predicted that the Cold War would occur, and this was even before Marx had written his infamous manifesto in the 1850s. At its core, it was a power struggle, and ideology was a convenient excuse.

The "Long Telegram" from Mr. X too was often misunderstood, but he, an American ambassador in Russia claimed that the USSR's greatest threat to America was economic. And America's main initial responses, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall plan were both economic in nature, both of which were put in place before 1950. Plus, America would later pick and choose the countries it would 'save' from Communism. It intervened in the Middle East, it intervened in Cuba, it intervened in Latin America, all of which were important bases for American foreign investment. But when Hungary begged for help, indeed staked their revolution completely on Western intervention in 1956, and when Czechoslovakia did the same in 1968, America did nothing. Why? There is no oil in Europe my friend.

 

I agree that for the people, Ideology was important, but that was nly because that was what the politicians put in their speeches.

[Aurielius]

"America would later pick and choose the countries it would 'save' from Communism. It intervened in the Middle East, it intervened in Cuba, it intervened in Latin America, all of which were important bases for American foreign investment. But when Hungary begged for help, indeed staked their revolution completely on Western intervention in 1956, and when Czechoslovakia did the same in 1968, America did nothing. Why? There is no oil in Europe my friend"

 

I think that in the case of both Hungary and Czechoslovakia there was mild problem of twenty nine divisions of Soviet Infantry, seventeen divisions of Soviet Armor and the time line problem of getting there before the civilian population was annihilated or held hostage. Both popular insurrections had the misfortune of being on the wrong side of Europe with NATO being purely defensive in composition and structure, it (NATO) was not the least bit equipped for offensive operations. We were more concerned about protecting the Fulda Gap and preventing the Soviets from reaching the English Channel in eight weeks than of going east, suggest you read Sir Liddel Hart if you want an accurate appraisal of our military position. Aside from the fact that we had allies (excepting the Brits) who could not be relied on for anything but defensive operations with little or no desire to go to general war, which would have been the resulting response from the Soviets. A dash to the rescue of those embattled states would have made Custer's attack at the Little Big Horn seem a prudent decision in comparison. The reason why the Cold War never went hot is that we ( the west) were prudent enough not to do what was impracticable militarily or geopolitically. If we had done the morally correct thing it is doubtful that either of us would be alive here today to debate this. I certainly would not be, Soviet air defense was impressive, it would have made Hanoi seem like a walk in the park.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Aurielius