Was the Soviet "threat" exaggerated by the US in the Cold War?

[RichM]

For Americans, the almost universally-held view of the Cold War was that the USSR was a brutal repressive dictatorship posing to the US an entirely realistic threat of military aggression. The belief was widespread that the Russians desired, & quite likely intended, to attack the US. The terrifying image of a first-strike attack by scores of nuclear-armed missiles raining down simultaneously upon all our cities pervaded our culture. It dominated all aspects of American life during most of the post-WWII period. This fear was reflected in TV, movies, literature, and of course, in our military budgets.

There is a minority school of thought that holds, to the contrary, that the above-sketched view of the threat of Soviet attack was greatly, & probably deliberately, exaggerated. According to proponents of this school, the Cold War portrayal of the likelihood of Russian attack was used much as the "War on Terrorism" is used now -- to justify enormous & unnecessary military expenditures, & to terrify the US population into submitting to a domestic political agenda favorable to conservative interests.

To what extent do you believe that the "standard" view of the Cold War was basically accurate & truthful in its portrayal of the Russians' intent to commit military aggression against the US?

[kentuck]

1. Didn't the CIA and intelligence sources say as much...

after the collapse of the Soviet Union? It was used as a justification for the military industrial complex.

[HEyHEY]

2. If I recall, didn't the soviets hype themselves a bit more than they

should have?

[HereSince1628]

30. Russian invasion of US 0, American invasion of Russia 1

I am not aware of any Russian invasions of American territory but after WWI the British and the US invaded northern Russia...bad move on the part of the western Allies, invasions really piss people off.

A friend introduced me to an old American that was involved in that expedition...he had a wonderful collection of pictures of places I actually visited a year later.

I am aware that the US played cat and mouse games with their navies and air forces, but I would call those encroachments rather than invasions...

With respect to Russian military technology, it may not have been as good as ours, but when deployed against us in Viet Nam it garnered respect from those of us who faced it.

[htuttle]

3. It was exaggerated on purpose

Look up the 'Team A/Team B' analysis exercise of the Soviet Union's military capabilities that was conducted in the 70's.

On one side, Team A was full of CIA analysts. They concluded that the Soviet Union was falling apart economically, and could not last another 10 years on their current track. However, even they overestimated the health of the Soviet economy.

On the other side, Team B was full of 'private' analysts. They concluded that the Soviet Union was a growing threat, and that we needed to increase defense spending to keep them in check or all was lost.

Not surprisingly, Reagan took the advice of Team B when he came into office, and our defense spending (and our national debt) skyrocketed.

Who was on Team B?

The Team B leader was Prof. Richard Pipes. Associates were Prof. William Van Cleave; Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham, USA (Ret.); Dr. Thomas Wolfe, RAND Corporation; and Gen. John Vogt, USAF, (Ret.). The Team's Advisory Panel was comprised of Ambassador Foy Kohler; The Honorable Paul Nitze; Ambassador Seymour Weiss; Maj. Gen. Jasper Welch, USAF; and Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/analysis_folder/analysissovteams.html

Any names you recognize in there?

Here's a good comparison from Newsweek between the Team A/B exercise, and the lead up to the invasion of Iraq:

Iraq is part of a pattern. In each of these cases, arguments about the threat posed by a country rest in large part on the character of the regime. The Team B report explains that the CIA’s analysis was flawed because it was based on too much "hard data"--meaning facts--and neglected to divine Soviet intentions. The Chinese regime is assumed to be a mortal danger because it is Leninist. Saddam was assumed to be working on a vast weapons program because he was an evil man.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/061603.html

[Sterling]

14. Wow H thats pretty good stuff

Did not know about the different analysis before. Thanks.

[JVS]

4. In light of what the world has looked like since the fall of the USSR

I must say that the Soviet union wasn't so much a threat to us than it was able to defend itself from us. The USSR didn't have to listen to us and we found that intolerable. It was more a threat to our hegemony than to our survival or saftey.

[keopeli]

5. After the Cold War, I went to Moscow as a christian missionary...

I listened as my new Russian friends laughed when they learned what the U.S. thought of the Soviet threat. The Soviet Army was built on a shoestring. Their real power lay in their posession of nuclear weapons. However, their relative technology and military apparatus was grosely over-estimated by the US.

I'm not saying that the USSR was actually no threat to us. Rather, I assert that very little of the information that was disseminated broadly around the US, and which instilled fear in myself and most Americans as we grew up, was based on fact. The USSR's resources were very limited because of their socialist style economy.

Is it good that the Cold War is over? Yes. Most Russians would agree. Is it important that we do not under-estimate our foes? Yes, certainly! Was the US propoganda and political machine fabricating a misplaced fear of the USSR? By and large, yes. And now, 14 years later, which country is moving in the right direction for itself and the world? The US or Russia?

This is just insight for everyone. I'm not trying to prove a point. We must know the facts of history to be able to make good decisions about where we want to go.

PS - The church I helped to start in Moscow still exists, though I am no longer affiliated with it or with the organization that I worked with originally. We went there to help the Russian people, not to convert them to Christianity. Our mission was one of benevolence, not evangelism. :)

[Keithpotkin]

6. "containment" was bullshit

we had bases all over the world...and right in their back yard. they had a few countries trying to make the system they fucked up work...and we bombed the shit out of all of those sorry lads.

[ithacan]

7. exactly like today's "war on terrorism"

greatly exaggerated in many ways, all for domestic political purposes.

we can begin with the beginning, when the right, including the infamous Sen. Mccarthy, used an extremely exaggerated image of the soviet threat in order to destroy the social democrats and new dealers who the right and the republicans especially hated so much. Conservative Dems also used this to their advantage as well.

Within the labor unions too more conservative forces used the image of the soviet threat in order to liquidate the more leftist, progressive (and often communist party affiliated) union leaders and unions themselves.

the parallels between the cold war and the "war" on terrorism are very good, but there is one difference. The Soviet Union did exist, it did have a military and nukes. The threat was greatly exaggerated, and US allies like South Africa under apartheid, Guatemala, etc. were much much more repressive than post-Stalin Soviet Union.

The current "war" however, is much more of a fantasy, and it will take I think the right to constantly manufacture crises and terror "alerts" and if they are desperate even terrorist "attacks" à la Operation Northwoods to use this same strategy over the long term.

Anyway, the "standard" view of the Cold War is a myth.

[Cocoa]

8. where can I find a good summary of the contrary view?

It sounds interesting, can you point to a good non-technical source for someone who knows little about the Cold War?

[RichM]

16. Here are a few that touch the subject.

A very short essay by Chomsky called "How the Cold War worked." It's a chapter in the booklet "What Uncle Sam Really Wants." I wouldn't say this is a "summary of the contrary view," but it's a good place to start.

I found a copy online at:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html

Also, there's a book named "Blues for America," by Douglas F. Dowd, a retired professor of Economics from Cornell. He ran for vice-president in 1968 on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket. He's a very interesting guy, & the book is intelligent, honest, insightful, bittersweet/funny, & warm-hearted. (Eldridge Cleaver was the presidential candidate on the P&F ticket in '68!)

[leftyandproud]

9. well, the USSR conquered several dozen countries...

and estimates of deaths under Stalin top 30 million...
They had more nukes than we did...
..and moved some to Cuba where we could be hit within 10 minutes..

but no, they posed no threat to us.

:eyes:

[wuushew]

11. Actually the U.S. had more warheads

since the U.S.S.R. was a bigger country we needed more nukes to destroy it. I do have the numbers somewhere if you want them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Think You Are Incorrect

I think the Soviets had more nukes than the U S even after the Reagan buildup except most of the Soviet nukes were land based while we had a nuclear triad-land based, sea based, and air based... Even if the Soviets would have mounted a bolt out of the blue pre emptive military strike on our land based missiles we could have massively retaliated with our sea based and air based missiles...


Also, don't forget that the Warsaw Pact nations had way more arms and manpower than NATO but NATO had a major qualitative edge....

[wuushew]

27. I stand corrected, however our MIRV technology was much better

here are some numbers from SALT II

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/salt2/text/salt2-4.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Agree

The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact always had more arms and men but the U S and it's allies had a qualitative edge...

[htuttle]

12. At the same time the Soviets had nukes in Cuba

...we had nukes in Turkey, right across the Soviets border. One of the little known concessions Kennedy gave out to solve the missile crisis was that we'd give up the missiles in Turkey in exchange for the missiles leaving Cuba.

Stalin was LONG dead by that time, and discredited inside the Soviet Union to boot.

It's come out since the 80's that many of the 'missiles' that were paraded through Red Square on May Day were, in fact, HOLLOW TUBES. Their economy was on the ropes for the last 20 years of their existence.

So, yes. The threat was exaggerated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I'm Reading A Book About RFK by Evan Thomas

and in the account of the Cuban missile crises it describes Castro as urging Kruschev to use nukes on the U S... It's also in Kruschev's memoirs, "Kruschev Remembers"

Castro was a world class loon...

[Sterling]

15. Thats pretty shallow coming from a DKer

I always thought you guys were into considering both sides of an issue?


Could you please list the several dozen countries the USSR "conquered".

After that you might want to consider US activities overseas before you paint the USSR as the Evil empire.

I'm not defending Stalinism or the Soviets but come on, be a little objective.

[RichM]

19. What a silly crock of bleep.

Both of your remarks are full-out BS, laughable to anyone who's ever seriously looked into it. You sound like you're one of Wolfowitz's students.

[durutti]

54. Wrong and/or Irrelevent

We had more nukes than them until the late 1970s, following the end of detente. And from the time the Soviets acquired nukes until the collapse of the USSR, we had superior technology. Our allies in France, the UK, and (later) Israel also had nukes.

Yes, the Soviets could've attacked us with nukes. And the U.S. gov't could've decided to attack them. Mutually-assured destruction kept both governments in check.

The Soviets did, of course, conquer much of Eastern Europe. That doesn't mean they were a threat to the United States, which was a much more powerful country than those taken over by the Soviet Union. In some cases, the U.S. provoked (unwittingly or otherwise) Soviet intervention. For example, the CIA had been manipulating Afghan politics long before the Soviets decided to invade.

And don't forget that at the same time the USSR was conquering these countries, the U.S. was in effect doing the same thing. The U.S. aided Chiang Kai-shek from 1945-1949; fixed elections in Italy to prevent the Communist Party from taking power in 1948; installed a fascist regime in Greece in 1949; fought leftist forces in the Philippines and installed a brutal puppet dictatorship; installed a dictatorship in South Korea in 1953; installed the Shah in 1953; installed a brutal regime in Guatemala in 1953; overthrew Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia in 1970, then sponsored the Khmer Rouge; installed Mobutu in the Congo; replaced democracy with dictatorship in Brazil; destroyed democracy in the Dominican Republic; installed Suharto in Indonesia; and more.

The Cold War was the official excuse used by both the United States and the Soviet Union to justify their imperialist ambitions.

As for Stalin: the fact that he was a tyrant hardly means he was a threat to the U.S. There were (and still are) scores of tyrants around the world.

And Stalin was a tyrant -- no one should be fooled into thinking otherwise. But the extent of his tyranny is often exagerrated.

There's no way that Stalin killed 20 million (the figure most commonly cited), and certainly not 30 million.

Fewer than 25 million people died from all causes from 1935 to 1941.

To arrive at 20 million deaths, there would have to have been fewer than 5 million deaths from normal causes between 1935 and 1941. So let's assume 900,000 deaths a year for seven years as the deaths from normal causes. For example, in 1936, that would mean a crude death rate from normal causes of less than 5/1000 a year, based on the Soviet population of 180.2 million.

That's impossible. The death rate has never been that low in the history of the United States, let alone the Soviet Union.

Also, the so-called Ukrainian holocaust was a hoax, or at least greatly exagerrated. See this Village Voice article: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

It's worth noting, too, that while many are justly critical of Stalin's oppression, they ignore the accomplishments of Stalin and the lives he saved by instituting programs that dramatically raised the Soviet standard of living. The Soviet mortality rate went from 30.2/1000 to 7.5/1000 from 1913 to 1956. The U.S. mortality rate, in comparison, went from 13.2 to 9.4 over the same period of time.

The Soviet infant mortality rate went from 273/1000 in 1913 to 47/1000 in 1956.

From 1913 to 1956, the Soviet life expectancy doubled. By 1956, life expectancy for men was the same in the Soviet Union as in the U.S., and life expectancy for women was only slightly less in the Soviet Union than in the U.S.

[JVS]

55. Good post.

I'd like to add that some of the methods of trying to claim massive killing of civilians, i.e comparing assumed population growth from ealier trends with more recent population counts, would reveal Yeltsin to be a horrible butcher if applied to post-soviet Russia.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. Cuba was real. RichM, please move on to the next issue. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Having Done Post Grad Work

in Government with an emphasis on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe I tend to believe option #2 best describes American elite attitudes during the Cold War...


American elites really believed the Soviets were ten feet tall... The best book I read on the subject was Alexander Cockburn's Ten Feet Tall..* He lampooned the Soviet miliary as poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly motivated and rife with ethnic tensions...

I also think the Soviet Union fell under the weight of it's internal contradictions and the burden of the arms race....


*It's been so long I'm no longer sure of the title...

[Patriot_Spear]

20. Being basically in the same boat...

I agree.

However that particular assessment of the Soviet Military is rather shallow. Where the US relied on technological advances, the Soviet Union has always stressed Depth is both offense and defense as well as simple, but reliable weapons systems.

Remember the Soviet Union was forced to integrate several different ethnic groups and languages into their armed forces. Underestimating the Bear's resourcefulness and resiliance would have been a recipe for disaster.

I would suggest a reading of the Matrokin papers as well as a review of the VENONA operations; for fun perhaps even the WWII 'Red Orchestra'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. That Was One Of The Big Points In Ten Feet Tall

that the Soviet army was rife with ethnic tension and many of the conscripts didn't want to be there...


Also, a fair theory to approach the Cold War is the "mirror image" theory. The U. S. saw in the U.S.S.R a hegemonic power bent on world domination and the U.S.S.R saw the U.S in the same light...


As an aside I think most military experts would say our military equipment was superior to theirs...

[sweetheart]

17. exaggerated... how about provoked.

Firstly i think the US has had now a little taste of what its like to be attacked in war.. 3000 dead... and that lead to invasions and global military action. Russia was invaded twice by germany in less than 40 years losing some 20 million people... understandably this created a touchy militarist state.

Then on reading about operation home run in 1948, america flew over 40 bombers over russia to test whether they could attack and shoot down those aircraft. The russians did not know that those planes did not have live nukes on them... and i think we'd be a little paranoid about an enemy that flys over our airspace with bomber wings.

We provoked the shit out of them. On visiting Saint Petersburg during the 1998 currency collapse, i felt that the USSR was grossly overinflated to be an enemy anywhere but on its own soil.

I'm sure there are a gazillion incedents like operation home run where american hawks tried to start a nuclear war... cold war my ass... provocation more like.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Germany Attacked Russia

after Stalin signed a non agression pact with Hitler... That was a bad move....

Also, after the attacked called Operation Barbarossa Stalin was so shocked and dismayed that he went on a three day drunk.... When he emerged from his three day drunk he rallied the people not by pleas to socialist internationalism but to Russian pride... He also opened many of the churches he had closed and freed the Orthodox Russian priests he had imprisoned....

During the war Roosevelt offered minesweepers to Stalin. Stalin demurred saying the Russians didn't need minesweepers since they could use their soldiers as cannon or mine fodder.

What a evil man...

That being said... I do believe the capitalist encirclement theory has some merit but how would you like to be a neutral country on Russia's border that was considered a threat and subject to annexation...

The Cold War was way more than a morality play with white hats and black hats. Like much of history it was way more nuanced...

[JVS]

25. any sources on your anecdotes?

And if you are going do denounce heavy drinking during wartime, take a look at Churchill or FDR.

On edit: Some of the countries we call neutral were anything but. Hungary and Romania both joined the axis willingly and send troops into Russia in the invasion. Not quite neutral by me.

[Sterling]

31. Stalin was bad but not completely stupid.

It is true he signed a non aggression pact and was shocked that Hitler went back on the deal however I have never seen any credible information that he turned down US support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Please Reread My Post

and the link I provide in the post below...


I never said Stalin turned down U S support... I said he turned down FDR's offer of minesweepers...

Stalin figured his military would find the mine after a hapless soldier stepped on it...

That's how wack he was...

[ProudGerman]

60. Was he really shocked?

Didn't Stalin move his factories beyond the Ural mountains, out of the range of Luftwaffe bombers, after the signing of the non-aggression pact. From what I've learned about that whole deal, it seems like it was done with a wink and a nod. That it was more of "let's get ready to fight pact."

[JVS]

74. It was a gambit for more time

Similar to the Munich conference of 1938 where the Western Democracies encouraged Hitler to turn his attention Eastward. The major difference is that the Western Democracies were arguable better prepared to face Germany in 1938 than they were a year later (The did not arm up as much as Germany in the year they gained), whereas Russia definitely capitalized on the time gained.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. "any source for your anecdotes"

The anecdotes are from a book I read while I was in Grad School. It was not part of the required text but I read it anyway...

The book was Stalin's Secret War by Nikolai Tolstoy


Here's the link:


http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Lutton84-94.html


If you want I can give you more links to more examples of Stalin's perfidy:

-the massacre of The Polish Officer Corps at Katyn Forest

-the forced collectivization which resulted in countless deaths

and

-The Doctor's Plot


Along with Mao and Hitler, Stalin was one of the greatest mass murderers of the twentieth century...

[JVS]

45. Sorry

You are going to have to do better than that link.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. try this one

http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/war-com.html

[JVS]

73. This is by far the strangest webpage I have ever seen

The historical boys' clothing website? Where the hell did you get this?

"The Communists without a maket economy are of course not noted for their fashion sence and fashion industry. There were some ideological constraints on fashion. Often clothing manufacturers just copied Western styles, but there were clothing industries in these countries and fashion developments. Some countries had specialized school fashions and uniforms and the Young Pioners were forme with uniforms."

Ummm, Ok.

"The Goverbment of Kim Jong Il seems determine to use food as a famine for those deemed the least loyal. Notabkly, relief agencies are not allowed to minitor food distribution in the most severely affected areas."

How could the Goverbment do such a thing! Where are the UN minitors!

[JVS]

77. Come on, show me better links than this, post-doc!

The link I posted wasn't filled with typos. Use some of that Post-doc talent to come up with a link that isn't laughable. If that is the best you can come up with I'd really have to wonder how your skills got you so far.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Wasn't Denouncing Heavy Drinking During Wartime

I was trying to paint a vivid picture of a psychically wounded and bewildered Stalin going on a three day drunk on the eve of Operation Barbarossa when he was double crossed by his ertswhile ally, Adolf Hitler....

Even after his generals informed him of the attack he refused to believe it...

[JVS]

46. You are just trying to smear Stalin

With an unsubstantiated anecdote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. "You Are Trying To Smear Stalin"

Stalin smeared himself by his own acts which included:

The Doctor's Plot


The Massacre of The Polish Officers Corps at Katyn Forest


Forced collectivization which resulted in massive starvation and death.....


The hit on Leon Trotsky- killed by Stalin's goons via a pickaxe in the head....

Since you didn't like my link on Stalin's atrocities could you provide a link or a source I can go to which speaks to his beneficence...

[TheBigGuy]

62. how dare you smear our great Revolutionary Leader!

ROFTL!

Yeah...that post was a hoot...."You are Trying to Smear Stalin!".

No shit...hard NOT to do as Stalin, as you pointed out, pretty much damned himself.

We sure are seeing the Soviet sympathizers come out of the woodwork here, arnt we?


Another instance of Stalinist brutality was the use of "blocking units", which where units behind the Russian main lines that had orders to shoot retreating soviet solidiers....thus giving the soviet troops no opiton...either get killed fighting the Germans or get killed by your own troops if you retreated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. here's another link

http://web.qx.net/jon/stalin.html

[JVS]

75. This link cites Robert Conquest for much of its content

That is like quoting the Arab league for information about Israel, questionable to say the least.

Here is an article about such work that was in Village Voice
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

I will agree with your basic premise that Stalin was responsible for atrocities. However, I am disappointed with your inability or unwillingness to find sources that do not either state outrageous claims such that Russian soldiers entering Poland in 1939 were far more interested in raping elderly women than securing the newly planned frontier or that are not dependent on writers who are known to have worked with the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office.

If I were to claim that Bush is a bad president because he pursues bad policy which costs lives, I would be correct. If I were to claim that Bush is a bad president because he has eaten children and killed everyone in Mankato Minnesota, I would be incorrect. Sources that do the latter with respect to Stalin are false, even if there is a kernel of truth around which the fabrication is made.

[JVS]

72. See post 71

[JVS]

71. Exactly

There are plenty of verifiable stories which make Stalin look bad. To tell unverified tales of him being a drunk is petty. It is like someone telling a story of how bad Hitler is because he kicked his dog, yeah he also was responsible for tens of millions of deaths by causing WWII. So if you want to trash a major historical figure, you should stick to something of historical significance.

[JackSwift]

23. I went with number 2

and I have a B.S. degree in the poli sciences and spent a few years on this very subject. Certainly there were McCarthyites and Nixonians who used the cold war for political gain, and others who used it for monetary gain. Those types will always be with us. But keep in mind that Stalin was one of history's most evil and dangerous men. He was never adventerous enough to take us on directly, but he did wage a low level war against us until the end of his life. Kruschnev was a harmless blowhard, pure and simple and he lost his job over it. Brezhnev was somewhere in between, and the Soviet equivilent of Reagan. He bankrupted the USSR by trying to achieve military superiority. He kept his intentions secret. I thought at the time that it was Russian paranoia, but I remember people who sincerely believed that the Soviets had an aggressive agenda and plenty of circumstantial evidence to back that up. The Soviets were an extreme danger to their immediate neighbors, such as Afghanistan and Eastern Europe, but for defensive reasons that only involved us because we rightly felt that this was blatant imperialism.

Ironically, it was the spying, and the Walker spy ring in this country that convinced the Soviets that our intentions were defensive, and our electronic spying on the Soviets that convinced even Reagan that the Soviets had defensive intentions. That, and younger generation of leaders like Gorbachev simply ended the cold war. The WWII generation remembered that a quarter of the population had died in WWII, and they weren't going to allow any risk of that happening again. And the world was a miserable place for it.

[Patriot_Spear]

28. Here's a spot on article I think you'll really enjoy...

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. People In This Thread Are Forgetting The Warsaw Pact

This wasn't a voluntary military organization like NATO witness the 1956 invasion of Hungary and the 1968 invasion of Czechoslavakia when they wanted out... The Soviets kept the nations of Eastern Europe captive under an iron thumb....

[htuttle]

41. I don't see anyone arguing that the Soviets were 'good' (esp. Stalin)

That's a straw man argument.

The point is that our assessment of their military was overblown (On purpose! see Reply #3).

And regarding the Warsaw Pact: Well, duh. However, the military of Guatemala, Somoza's Nat. Guard and Peron's stormtroopers were hardly benign either. In that regard, the civilian populations of all three of those countries (+ Chile and a dozen or so countries in Africa) 'wanted out' as you say. Our military saw to it that they 'stayed in', due to what we considered their strategic importance during the Cold War. How about UNITA? The list goes on. In addition, our intelligence services carried out dozens of political assassinations during that period. No side was without sin during the Cold War.

The Soviet military did not pose the sort of threat that was suggested to us by our government. Much of that inaccurate assessment was done to enrich defense contractors. THAT is the point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Now You Are Using Strawmen

I said that the mirror image theory goes far in explaining the Cold War Rivalry...

The U S saw the U S S R as a hegemonic power bent on world domination and the U S S R saw the U S the same way....

And I am well aware of American perfidy from Mossadegh to Batista to Somoza to Marcos and so on...

That's why I voted for Option 2.

[TheBigGuy]

63. I voted for 2 as well....and thats a good post, too.

Thanx for that. A plausible take on what really happened during the Cold War.

[Rick Myers]

24. I served in the USAF in alaska in the 70's

Everyone KNEW there was NO threat from the Soviet Union, but we continued to poise at full alert, because that's what we were told to do. NO ONE believed the USSR was a threat, we knew their military hardware was junk...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. That's Because American Military Planners

made a wager something akin to Pascal's Wager...

The danger of underestimating the Soviet Union's intent and capability was so great that the most prudent course was to be prepared...

[htuttle]

44. Pascal's Wager assumes no harm comes from assuming the worst

In fact, GREAT harm was often done by what you refer to as being 'prudent'.

As the Soviet Union spent themselves into oblivion to protect themselves from what they felt was the omnipresent danger of the 'American Imperialists', so did WE spend ourselves into massive debt to protect ourselves from 'The Red Terror'.

That was/is no Pascal's Wager. It was and is graft, corruption, and incompetence.

[JackSwift]

56. I gotta agree here

There was no way the Soviets were going to invade North America, but the threat of overrunning Europe was a real worry in real time, not so much in hindsight. Their soldiers proved their bravery in WWII, many, many times over, and Zukov was one of the best commanders in history, taking on a technologically superior opponent and constantly winning.

[tom_paine]

26. Looking at the bigger picture -- Option #2

Nobody denies the "Team A" and "Team B" Bushevik Scenario of exaggeration that occurred very likely throughout the Cold War, but I don't think there's any question that the Soviet Union was also pursuing the goal of Global Domination.

"Workers of the World, Unite!" would also have to be a telling slogan.

So there was a threat. I think the Soviets had as many Bushevik types as the Busheviks, if not more, and they had much freer reign to "get away with things". And there's not much question, IMHO that things the the Ukrainian Wheat "Famine" and other atrocities which purposefully killed millions, not to mention the Gulags, etc., equal or surpassed American atrocities.

Not that I deny them. The genocide, crushing, and land theft of the Native American populations ranks up with that, and of course the 100 more years of terror levelled against the African-Americans in America.

But then my difference would be this: America, still built upon the framework of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which promised Liberty...and delivered, just a bit of it...to the widest circle of people possible, particularly compared to Monarchial-based Europe. Yes, it started as a select group, but that group widened...in the 1830s again in 1865 again 1915 or so with the XVII Amendment (direct election of Senators), then a final push after WWII to 1970 and the fullest extension of rights to the fullest numbers of people ever.

Was it completely fair? No. Was it perfect? No. Was it built on atrocity as well as ideals? So is everywhere.

Contrast the to the Soviet Union, where to my thinking the Communist Party Heirarchy forming truly the Not-So-New Aristocracy, just under another name. Think about it. Grinding poverty for most of the Soviet people. Environemntal calamities and towns industrialized in haste pumping out pollutants. A trip to the Gulag never out of mind.

To me, the Communist Party heirarchy living extraordinarily well, while limited living standards. I knew a Soviet emigre, a college professor and scientist, telling me he had to farm vegetables in his cellar even when he was sick because his family had to eat. While the fat dudes in Moscow eating of the Tsar's Samovars.

How's that all that much different (stripping away the justifications and idealism behind these two ideologies) from the Busheviks are ultimately aiming for?

To get back to my point. It's not 100% right or wrong on either side. And, noting flaws on both sides, if I had to choose Stalin/Khruschev/Brezhnev vs. Truman/Eisenhowewer/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon, with then I'll go with that atom bombing-Harry and the rest, warst and all...

[Syrinx]

29. Come on, they had nuclear missiles what 60 miles from Florida

[Sterling]

32. Please read the whole thread before posting

You'll find that it saves you from posting something that has already been addressed.

The Cuban Crisis was a small blip in the history of the cold war and juxtaposed with the fact we had nukes across the USSR's border in Turkey which we traded for the USSR removing the Cuban nukes, it diminishes the idea that the USSR was as much a threat to us as we were to them.

[tom_paine]

33. To be fair though, we had missiles not much further away from them

in Turkey. Sort of a mirror image of Cuba.

Not that I don't completely agree with Kennedy's stance and not allowing it to happen and all that.

But just saying that they planted nukes on the soils of their allies close to our southern flanks...well as I said we did the same.

[MrPrax]

53. Yeah and The US had many More...

missiles on their border in Turkey...
Ergo...the Cuban gambit by the Soviets.

Which BTW worked...the US got rid of most of the Turkish based warheads

[knight_of_the_star]

38. My opinion

Is that most of that image of the USSR being a huge threat to the US was based not on truth but on the image that was created by Josef Stalin's rule over the Soviet Union and the massive military buildup he conducted and the actions he took against the West following WWII. HE would have been more than willing to invade the west and would have if France held out longer than it did against Germany. It was what Stalin had done that was hyped by Reagan during the 80s when that in fact was a lie. Both Brezhnev and Gorbachev were anything but Stalinists.

[moondust]

40. Yes and no.

The main threat was not to the U.S. despite the decades of fear mongering by mostly right wing fanatics and terrified capitalists leading to unimaginable superfluous U.S. military spending. Any credible threat there may have been was to Greater Western Europe. Ask the Czechs.

[MrPrax]

43. In a 2nd Year Poli Sci International Politics course...

a student asked this cold war question and the commies coming to take our toothbrushes.

The Prof was hilarious.

He went to the world map and said,
"ok these are the communist countries...and these are the one's on our side!!"

He paused for a minute and then, smirked..."I think we can agree we have the commies covered. Now can we get on to something more interesting about geo-politics"

After he dispensed with this during the first lecture, we got a whole lot more out of international politics

He was right then, and he is still right now

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Cept The Warsaw Pact Was A Involuntary

Military Organization and NATO was a voluntary one....

The Soviets kept almost the entire Eastern Europe
under their thumb...

We didn't invade France when DeGaulle decided to leave NATO* but the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslavakia and Hungary when they wanted to leave...





*France is not a full member of NATO. They are not part of NATO's planning committe but I believe they are pledged to assist in NATO operations.

[MrPrax]

52. Couldn't Have Been All That Involuntary...

Yugoslavia was never a member and neither was Albania

But since we are talking about International Commie Threats to Our Cars!!!
Why split hairs...
China was neither a COMECON or a WARSAW Pact member...

Love the way the World becomes Europe and indeed France wasn't NATO either...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. If You Read My Post

I never said the Soviets controlled the whole world or all of Eastern Europe so that was a strawman you knocked down which doesn't even require a breeze....

China- I doubt the Soviets wanted to attack another communist country;especially one with a ten million man army...


And Soviet domination of the Warswaw Pact nations was undisputably real...

[kodi]

47. wugga wugga. can you say "missile gap?"

that phrase by kennedy infuriated eisenhower who knew there was none, unless it was referring to the one the soviets were losing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. But It Is A Fact That That The Soviets Closed That Gap In Their Favor

during the 60's in numerical terms but never qualitative terms...

[kodi]

51. the "missile gap" rhetoric was used in the 1960 election.

your comments are as meaningful as tits on a bull.

you cant use the excuse that AFTER 1960 the soviets closed the gap because kennedy was referring to the present, not the future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. your comments are as meaningful as a penis on a eunuch which in your case

might have a special saliency....


I never said that JFK didn't run on a phony missile gap....


All I said is that the Soviets passed the U S at some time in the
total amount of nuclear weapons...

[kodi]

69. waaaah, waaaah, you hurt my sensitive feelings

and the missile gap rhetoric used by jfk was employed deceptively in 1960 and YOU responded to MY post, not to another poster or directly to the original thread question with your drivel about what happened years later, like it had anything to do with the point of my post, which was to speak directly to the topic of this thread with facts about the use by american politicians to speak deceptively about the strength of the soviet artmed forces for political gain.

so why did you do it? did you have some overweening need to show your smarts to impress us with your ability to provide non-sequiters and useless information out of context to what was being said?

you might as well of posted that ice cream has no bones as to what you did in relation to the context of my post.

tits on a bulls as all you brayed on about and are just as useless as your remarks and insults.

with the mental capacity your posts showed for relevant thinking, its small wonder conservatives think progressives are arrogant idiots.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I Didn't See Any Non-Sequiturs In My Post

I clearly stated that the Soviet Union passed the U S A in the arms race by one selective measure which I don't think is particulary critical....


Taliking about non-sequiturs I think it it a leap in logic to infer that a "lie" for domestic consumption by Kennedy about an alleged missile gap is proof positive that the cold war that endured for nearly five decades was a phony war which is basically option 1

For the record I subcribe to option 2 . The Cold War is way too complex to be reduced to some morality play....

on edit-"tits on a bull"- Another day.... Another fetish.... Do you have a link?

[Junkdrawer]

50. Soviet troop strength estimates were routinely exaggerated...

in order to justify larger and larger military spending. The Soviets were "giants who could, at a moment's notice, crush us" right up to their collapse. The exaggerations were then portrayed as “clever devices that led to the Soviet demise.” :puke:

[David Zephyr]

66. Of Course It Was "Overstated"

Defen$e Contract$, Baby!

That's why when after the "fall of communism" (please note the quotation marks), there had to be a new "enemy" to rally against and, as Gore Vidal says, we were given the new creation of "terrorists" and "terrorism" as the bogeyman.

Hi RichM, you pinko, you! :hi:

[RichM]

68. Hi David Zephyr -- Thank you for supplying me with a reason to

share my treasured picture collection with y'all:



I was just busy worshipping them at my altar over in the corner when I noticed your post. ;-)

Your on-target remark brings to mind the following simple point: When the USSR finally disintegrated, the Pentagon budget did NOT go down, even under a Democratic administration. Now, one must seriously wonder, just WHY might that be? Hmmmm...

[JVS]

76. bump

[JVS]

78. bump

[Terwilliger]

79. kick

[JVS]

80. kick

[JVS]

85. bump

[JVS]

86. bump

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. I'm a baby boomer

who grew up during the height of the Cold War.

My late grade school years were marked by the Cuban missile crisis and frequent TV programs about preparation for possible nuclear war. Like many in my generation, I had nightmares about falling bombs, and I cringed inwardly every time a plane flew overhead.

It didn't help that I spent part of my childhood in close contact with Latvian emigres, who were rabidly anti-Soviet, and for perfectly understandable reasons, since Stalin had done terrible things to their country (mass arrests, suppression of all aspects of traditional culture that were contrary to Soviet ideology, forced collectivization, attempts to "dilute" the population by forcing Latvians to move elsewhere and forcing Russians to move in).

In later years, I've talked with Russian and Chinese emigres of my generation, and they were all taught to be terrified of an attack from the United States. In fact, the Chinese were astonished that we had been taught to be afraid of them.

Eastern Europe was seized during the Stalinist period, which gave the Soviets a de facto empire. After that, their aggressive activities were very similar to those of the U.S., namely, attempts to keep "wayward" client states in line. Think of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and even Afghanistan. None of these were new conquests, merely attempts to prop up client governments that were facing popular rebellion.

The U.S. did similar things in Vietnam and in numerous covert and "open secret" operations. Our governments' inexcusable funding and aid for repressive governments in Central America facing well-deserved popular revolts was comparable to what the Soviets did. Chomsky was convinced that only massive opposition from a wide cross-section of American society prevented the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations from sending troops into El Salvador and other Central American countries.

[RichM]

83. So Lydia - as one boomer to another - does that translate into a sense

that what we were told while growing up was basically true, or basically greatly exaggerated?

When you write, "The U.S. did similar things in Vietnam..." -- the USSR never did anything that killed 3 million or so people, during their crackdowns in Hungary & Czechoslovakia. Vietnam involved dropping napalm etc & chemically poisoning a large part of an entire country. The Russians, while no angels, never did anything remotely like that. Vietnam was violence on a whole different scale.

I'm interested to know how you think of this. We're about the same age, you've long been one of my favorite DU posters (& we both lived in New Haven during Vietnam, IIRC). When I was in college, I generally thought the Vietnam war was wrong, but it's only in recent years that I've begun to understand how terrible a thing it really was. When I look back on it, I see that my view in college was still terribly naive, & unconsciously influenced by some underlying conviction that "our leaders must have their reasons."

[Nikia]

82. I think that the Soviets felt threatened

After World War II, the Soviets were determined not to be invaded again by the Germans or the American/British alliance. They lost many people in the war. Although the Soviet Union was on the same side as the Americans and British at the end of the war, the Soviets mistrusted them because of ideological differnces and the fact that the Americans and British would not ally with them against Germany before the Soviets signed the non agression pact with Germany. That is why it sought out buffer states that included most of Eastern Europe. After the Americans responded to the military build up and increased territory of influence, the Soviets feared the Americans even more. As a result things got out of hand, and both sides feared that they would not be as strong militarily as the other side.

[DemExpat]

84. The military threat to attack the US might have been exaggerated,

but Cuba, Eastern Europe, and Africa, are all reasons - economical, ideological, and political -
that the US rightly perceived the USSR to be a threat to its interests and ideology.

Mostly wanting a world without barriers to economic interests (friendly to capitalism) often disguised (IMO)
by championing of Democratic Ideals, was the main reason the US Played the Cold War game.

Just studying this very subject in my American Century course this year!
(British perspective...........:-))

Have a big paper due Wednesday on how the Cold War affected the U.S. (culturally, economically, politically, etc.) :crazy:

DemEx