Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated April 10)
Cold War General Thread Ignore Report Reply
John Feffinglod - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:56:03 EST ID:6nKr2p8x No.54044
File: 1413255363389.jpg -(22825B / 22.29KB, 533x314) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22825
The concepts of MAD and proxy wars obsess me. Let's have a thread focusing on cold war era geopolitics, and also have a look at the culture of the time and different points of view that each country had.

Kissinger critiquing the concept of total war and calling for americans to focus on conventional warfare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SJikzUwwOY
The build up to the cold war with an empathsis on the British point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SJikzUwwOY
>>
John Feffinglod - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:42:16 EST ID:6nKr2p8x No.54046 Ignore Report Reply
Playlist of a series playing through the entire history of the cold war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuSbJ-zlos&index=1&list=PLOQm_eUXD7refxe2zn4cWWxF4NzRx2Ut2
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sat, 23 May 2015 17:28:33 EST ID:ai7LxHR6 No.55448 Ignore Report Reply
>>54044
I'd like additional focus on the [non-]war that the US had v. Communist China in conjunction with the Soviet Union.
>>
Archie Winnerwad - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:04:07 EST ID:U3VhWSWR No.55866 Ignore Report Reply
The idea of the cold war itself is a NATO / US conception of political history.

The soviet and worse, revolutionary, perspectives are not at all focused on geopolitics or MAD or proxy wars.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:21:40 EST ID:ai7LxHR6 No.55868 Ignore Report Reply
>>55866
I heard that if the Soviets were actually doing well with their centralisation, we wouldn't have even bothered with a "cold war" with them. If they managed to keep most rulings separate and not do retarded shit (like the Ukrainian massacres, purges, etc), it might've actually kept America separate and not have "socialism, communism, etc" as a bad term.

I didn't believe them until they brought up China as an example. The only reason we're not shaming them for communism is because they're actually doing well (relatively).

Also, yes. I know that Soviet and Chino "Communism" is not true communism. It's near impossible to set up a centralised ANYTHING with a population that large. This includes American democracy not being actual democracy.
>>
Phineas Nudgenotch - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:11:45 EST ID:U3VhWSWR No.55872 Ignore Report Reply
>>55868
Well you heard shit. Look up the first Red Scare when hundreds of wobblies were executed, the anarchists Goldman and Berkman (amongst others) were deported, and the US had a hysterical anti-german racism largely because of the links between American-Germans and socialism.

If the US wasn't capitalist, it wouldn't have tried to crush the Soviet Union as an alternate version of capitalism that seemed to claim communism was possible.

>China as an example
You do realise that the US is billions of dollars in debt to Chinese capitalism, and that 1989 marked the end of any remnant social democratic formations in China? That's why the Chinese capitalist elite had to massacre shit loads of communist workers and intellectuals?

>centralised ANYTHING
You don't seem to know what communism is, at all. Centralisation is antithetical to the free interplay between humans in a propertyless society. Centralisation is one of the typical expressions OF property.

Try reading Bill Lomax's history of Hungary 1956. It should give you a view of how fractured Eastern societies were. Then try Andrle on workers in soviet russia: the USSR was never not capitalist, wages were constant.
>>
Ebenezer Wubblebat - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:29:25 EST ID:hT3/Evlt No.55873 Ignore Report Reply
1435886965445.png -(355798B / 347.46KB, 600x860) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55868
The Russian and Chinese Revolutions were actually just their transitions out of the stage of feudalism and into the stage of capitalism. Despite the Socialist/Marxist/Communist rhetoric and trappings, they were not revolutions of socialism. They were every bit as brutally violent and destabilizing as France's, USA's, Germany's, Italy's, Spain's, Great Britain's transitions as well.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:33:55 EST ID:ai7LxHR6 No.55874 Ignore Report Reply
>>55872
This is a weird conversation because it occasionally flip-flops between the definitions of "mass-accepted" communism (which would define China and the Soviet Union as Communist) and "true" communism.
I went under the whole guise of the "communist" elites (I know it's quite oxymoronic but it works in the former sense) in all of the nations.
My entire point is: "If the USSR did as socially well as the USA did in the 1950s, would the Cold War even have occurred to that extent?"

On that line, how would one (anyone) instil communism in a society with more than 50 million people without centralisation? That's why I had to clarify with my final point.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:39:55 EST ID:ai7LxHR6 No.55875 Ignore Report Reply
>>55872
Regarding the history of Europe via Lomax and Andrle, why do you recommend such obscure books? They seem like a short enough read but I feel like there might be a better encompassing group.
What's with your personal fascination with them in particular?

>>55873
I think this sums it up pretty well, actually.......... "A transition from Feudalism > Capitalism using a violent uprising under the guise of 'for the people, socialism' while completely ignoring the fact that skipping capitalism might not be wise"

On that note, I'm going to withdrawal my argument entirely about the "Americans Cold War Soviet not happening" thing. I don't think any good can come from further arguing that point as I see it as invalid
>>
Ebenezer Wubblebat - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:49:01 EST ID:hT3/Evlt No.55876 Ignore Report Reply
1435888141445.jpg -(394449B / 385.20KB, 2968x2140) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55874
For being the site of most of the major fighting in WW2, the USSR wrecked shit during the 50s and into the 60s while the USA was bogged down in purges and quagmires of its own. Along with the Red Chinese, they fought the USA into a stalemate in Korea. They were the first nation in space, first nation to put a man in space. Scored several key Cold War victories including stealing nuclear secrets, shooting down an advanced US spy plane, and using Cuba to get US missiles out of Turkey.

That's not to say the West didn't have victories either, like the Berlin Airlift and the coup in Iran. But Soviet culture and the Soviet Empire were looming large at that time. All the more reason for the USA to NOT be their friend and do everything in their power to fight the Soviet Empire.

Soviet isolation helped them in the 30s because of their insulation from the Depression. And since you're not American, you might not know that the USA suffered through a big drought in the 30s as well, it's just that they weren't simultaneously trying to implement a new and completely unproven method of agriculture. Collective Farming was really one of the biggest errors of the Soviet Union which persisted until its collapse.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:04:18 EST ID:ai7LxHR6 No.55877 Ignore Report Reply
>>55876
I seem to have quite a huge misconception of history and disorganisation of my thoughts regarding timelines and the true "excellence" of the country at the time.
I always inferred that the US was mighty from the 1940s > 1980s due to their territorial and military expansion outside of the country and never really focused on what was happening inside the country. (also, the drought and dust-storms are known pretty well not as causes of the depression but what kept the depression depressed).
Regarding China, I've also always seen them as weak in the 1950s but they were finally coming out of colonialism and feudalism pushed by the British, Japanese, etc and seemed to embrace it well.

You mentioned the downfall of the collective farming. Is it not that the collective farming was so detrimental that it could easily surpass any failures of the west? Sure, the Soviets and Chinese had a lot of technological, medical, scientific superiority. But what good is that when people are living off rations of food every day and could not find a single serving of meat during some weeks?
Remember not to forgo what U3VhWSWR brings up in >>55872. The USSR satellite states were not in array in those years. They were not benefiting at all.

What is an accurate measure of "greatness" when it comes to those days? Can we forgo human misery for the sake of measuring technology? How much of it truly "matters" in the end?
>>
Ebenezer Wubblebat - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:39:59 EST ID:hT3/Evlt No.55878 Ignore Report Reply
1435891199445.jpg -(685218B / 669.16KB, 1057x815) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55877
Dude, you need to read some wikipedia pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Mao faced coup attempts and power grabs, but he was a very strong and intelligent leader. The 50s and 60s were not a stable time for the PRC in the least.

>They were not benefiting at all.
This is true, there was quite a bit of dissent among the post WW2 Warsaw Pact satellites. They got stripped of their industry in the immediate aftermath of the war. They got their best talent stolen by the Russians. There was also Hungary and Czechoslovakia, in addition to the Berlin Airlift I mentioned earlier.

>accurate measure of "greatness"
I look at it like we look at it for all of history. From a detached neutral perspective. Now, certainly I will use elements of history for political ends, but it's never wise to study history with a political mindset.

Marxism-Leninsim and especially Maoism are great formulas for overthrowing a feudal system. Maoist rebels (no friends of the Chinese State, mind you) have been active in eastern India for decades. Maoists overthrew the King in Nepal in the mid 2000s, but sold out to be part of a run of the mill Parliamentary system. But what comes after will inevitably hunker down to some good old fashioned alienated labor.
>>
Phineas Nudgenotch - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:49:24 EST ID:U3VhWSWR No.55879 Ignore Report Reply
>>55874
You can't inflict communism, its an action by the entire working class as a collective subject.

> "If the USSR did as socially well as the USA did in the 1950s, would the Cold War even have occurred to that extent?"

The cold war was used to repress US workers and as an excuse for imperialism. It doesn't matter who played the role of dickhead for the US elite.


>>55875
>Regarding the history of Europe via Lomax and Andrle, why do you recommend such obscure books? They seem like a short enough read but I feel like there might be a better encompassing group. What's with your personal fascination with them in particular?

They're interested in the detailed archival history of workers in the soviet-style societies, the potential for their revolution, and they're not playing Stalin vs Trotsky games (like even Robert Conquest does).


>>55876
>Soviet isolation helped them in the 30s because of their insulation from the Depression. And since you're not American, you might not know that the USA suffered through a big drought in the 30s as well, it's just that they weren't simultaneously trying to implement a new and completely unproven method of agriculture. Collective Farming was really one of the biggest errors of the Soviet Union which persisted until its collapse.

You now realise that agricultural exports was how the Soviet Union gained hard capital from the West, ie: industrial imports. And agricultural prices collapsed in 1929 for some reason, devastating the Soviet Union's capacity to industrialise and requiring far more agricultural exports to sustain the planned level of industrialisation. Collective farming was the only way the soviet elite could force peasants to supply the levels of grain required. For some reason the soviet elite was more interested in preserving their elite status than the welfare of the workers and peasants they ruled in the name of.
>>
Ebenezer Wubblebat - Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:33:17 EST ID:hT3/Evlt No.55881 Ignore Report Reply
>>55879
Hard currency woes were always the thorn in the back of the Soviet Empire.
>>
Walter Greenhall - Sun, 05 Jul 2015 03:21:19 EST ID:8hSk1rC9 No.55884 Ignore Report Reply
1436080879073.jpg -(79868B / 78.00KB, 720x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55879
>> "If the USSR did as socially well as the USA did in the 1950s, would the Cold War even have occurred to that extent?"
>The cold war was used to repress US workers and as an excuse for imperialism. It doesn't matter who played the role of dickhead for the US elite.
This.
"fighting communism" was a convenient excuse to support dictators and terrorist states in South America, Africa, the middle east, and Asia when it was geopolitically expedient.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:35:05 EST ID:ccIKPGhE No.55899 Ignore Report Reply
>>55884
I'm glad my question remains to be brought up in such a manner as that^.
I've known of the facts but have never really related each other or put them as a direct cause of one another. Thanks, 8hSk1rC9!
>>
Nigger Finninglick - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:33:20 EST ID:8hSk1rC9 No.55900 Ignore Report Reply
1436488400990.jpg -(150152B / 146.63KB, 700x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55899
I hold with respect to alliances, that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful, to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England—apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial—is to be the champion of justice and right; pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks that wrong has been done...I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow... And if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.

Henry Temple, Prime Minister
Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848).

>the Soviets and Chinese had a lot of technological, medical, scientific superiority
Superior to what? Electric tractor unrelated.
>>
Hedda Chimmerfield - Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:24:32 EST ID:OE1PGRtd No.55913 Ignore Report Reply
>>55448
I like this post, so I'll chuck a few links down this line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split

so basically, once Stalin kicked the bucket and Khrushchev said "fuck all that noise Joe was spittin', sorry guys", Mao goes and calls them (and I quote) "Revisionist Traitors". China decides it's time to take control of world communism from the Russians and starts seeding the third world with its own network of local communist parties in competition with the Soviets. Albania and Somalia jump ship from Bear to Dragon. Soviets and Chinese shoot at each other along the border. Shit's gettin heated, son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Meanwhile, the United States is dialing down our wars in the Far East. Korea was twenty years ago. We lost the Philippines thirty years ago. Vietnam is going very poorly and it's obvious we'll be out of the country soon. We're done trying to forcibly expand in East Asia, but the Russians certainly aren't. Russia becomes the bigger threat to China, not in the least because as the US was pulling out of Vietnam, the Soviets were crushing an uprising the Czechoslovakia.

So Mao and Nixon (read: Kissinger) sit down and chat. They both don't like the Russians. America likes the idea of selling shit to a billion Chinese, and the Chinese like the idea of selling shit to a few hundred million fat Yankees. And so began modern Sino-American relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Rapprochement
>>
Whitey Borringridge - Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:09:26 EST ID:HI6SkGj2 No.56021 Ignore Report Reply
>>55900

The english had a navy and held a bunch of trade routes, got overpopulated, expelled population, then population said "fuck you guys, never liked you hokey bastards in the first place" and kept colonies... with varying degrees of wtf involved. Canada seems the most confused though.
>>
Jenny Bagglehet - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:14:29 EST ID:VvcaoJPx No.56140 Ignore Report Reply
>>55900
I agree England is always maintained a very strong set of alliances predicated mostly on their strength rather than their allies strength which keeps them as the dominant part until of course the second world war and which days they obviously got pretty overwhelmed by you has his production
>>
Molly Shakeford - Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:43:05 EST ID:K//zrI33 No.56142 Ignore Report Reply
You want to explore proxy wars and MAD all you have to do is look to the situation in the middle East that has been manipulated by the Americans, the Saudi Arabians and the Israelis
>>
Edward Socklenick - Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:45:25 EST ID:yNa7lnyO No.56143 Ignore Report Reply
1442976325657.jpg -(260975B / 254.86KB, 1600x1067) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56142
Don't forget to include the Indian peninsula into that mix, to help put it into an even bigger and thus better yours versus ours MAD players, like India, Pakistan, and one day even Sril Lanka. Such mad MAD policies all around the globe is amazingly mad.
>>
Fanny Worthingstock - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:30:02 EST ID:1qEdrkTE No.56145 Ignore Report Reply
1442986202603.jpg -(91470B / 89.33KB, 371x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Just read "A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev" by Vladislav Zubok, which covers Soviet foreign policy and political history excellently. Zubok, as far as I know, coined a term for the near-constant premise of Soviet foreign policy called "Revolutionary-Imperialist paradigm", which assumed the imminent collapse of the liberal capitalist order and that armed with Marx's "scientific theory", Soviet diplomats and statesman were superior to their Western counterparts.

I'm interested what everyone's perspective is on Mikael Gorbachev? I had always looked up to Gorbachev as a peacemaker and liberal idealist, but wowza did this book convincingly paint his tenure as characterized by chaos and naivety! After the mid-80's he wouldn't use force in practically any circumstance, whether to quell protests or defeat rebels or just bulwark the state (the only pacifistic world leader perhaps in world history). He also winged almost all of his domestic and foreign policy, often resulting in failure or decentralization due to inadequate planning.

Also, Raymond Garthoff's tomes on the Cold War from Nixon to Reagan are phenomenal, probably some of the most incisive and even-handed Cold War histories ever written.

>>55913
Zubok's book corroborates that Mao's puritanism and ideological radicalism were a constant thorn on the side of the Soviet foreign policy. He suggested that Mao's China resented heavily the Soviets' international stature and how they dominated the communist world, so they'd constantly undermine (relative) Soviet pragmatism.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.