Pages: 1 2

 

2008-06-18 19:57:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

pierro wrote:

ZombiVampire! wrote:

The Europeans invited the US to join because they couldn't win on their own, of course.  But if you honestly think the US could have prevented the Russians in Europe on their own you're crazy.
-The US knew Russia wouldn’t be stupid enough to invade western Europe because they had nukes and could therefore destroy Russia…That’s why Truman flew nuclear equipped B-29’s over at the beginning of the Berlin blockade so that Russian spies could see them…to show them they were serious
This is correct. The US was also charged with the task of preoccupying the Soviets during the subsequent military buildup. The economics of the cold war proved to be too much.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 20:07:47
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249
Yes, but without the alliance the Russians would have had no reason not to invade the rest of Europe.



Assuming that they wanted to and they believed the US had nukes.
2008-06-18 20:11:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Yes, but without the alliance the Russians would have had no reason not to invade the rest of Europe.



Assuming that they wanted to and they believed the US had nukes.
Posturing I suppose. Just putting to paper that an attack on one is an attack on all. The Russian response was the Warsaw Pact.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 20:14:46
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249
No, they put that on paper with the Truman Doctrine.
2008-06-18 20:18:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, they put that on paper with the Truman Doctrine.
NATO was an invite from Western Europe. Big differences.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 20:27:13
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7128
NATO succeeded as a deterrent.  The cold war never went hot now did it?
2008-06-18 20:32:59
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

NATO succeeded as a deterrent.  The cold war never went hot now did it?
Yes, it did. The US in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Take your pick.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 20:36:48
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249
Neither were direct conflicts between the USSR and the US or NATO.

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, they put that on paper with the Truman Doctrine.
NATO was an invite from Western Europe. Big differences.
Not for our purposes.
2008-06-18 20:40:31
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Neither were direct conflicts between the USSR and the US or NATO.
Wars fought on the same cold war priciple. I know who was directly involved in the conflicts bubs.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, they put that on paper with the Truman Doctrine.
NATO was an invite from Western Europe. Big differences.
Not for our purposes.
You are citing a presidents ambiguous appeal to congress as the same thing as a formal treaty between sovereign states. Big difference.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 20:43:09
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Neither were direct conflicts between the USSR and the US or NATO.
Wars fought on the same cold war priciple. I know who was directly involved in the conflicts bubs.
But the actual Cold War never turned hot.  If it had there'd be a lot more smoking craters around.

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


NATO was an invite from Western Europe. Big differences.
Not for our purposes.
You are citing a presidents ambiguous appeal to congress as the same thing as a formal treaty between sovereign states. Big difference.
You're arguing that all that was needed was to put the US' intentions onto paper which is exactly what the Truman doctrine did.  Formal treaties are not binding, especially not when one party is much more powerful than the other.
2008-06-18 20:50:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Neither were direct conflicts between the USSR and the US or NATO.
Wars fought on the same cold war priciple. I know who was directly involved in the conflicts bubs.
But the actual Cold War never turned hot.  If it had there'd be a lot more smoking craters around.
The cold war was a battle of ideas as well.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Not for our purposes.
You are citing a presidents ambiguous appeal to congress as the same thing as a formal treaty between sovereign states. Big difference.
You're arguing that all that was needed was to put the US' intentions onto paper which is exactly what the Truman doctrine did.  Formal treaties are not binding, especially not when one party is much more powerful than the other.
You are confused. I am not arguing for anything. I thought you might have picked that up when I said it was posturing. The fact is that rather than generalizing "all democratic states", NATO drew specific lines in the sand. It reinforced and clarified the commitment each member state had to each other. Personally I feel both of them were horrible blows to the principles our constitution was founded on.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-19 03:55:21
BVC
Member
+325|7117
In my drunken stupor I thought that posting this thread was an awesome way to troll, but instead its backfired on me and spawned an interesting discussion.

Well done D&ST!
2008-06-19 04:11:45
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7097|Canberra, AUS
Europe was critical to the entire balance of the CW, yes.

I thought that China was slightly aligned to the US over the USSR...

Pubic wrote:

In my drunken stupor I thought that posting this thread was an awesome way to troll, but instead its backfired on me and spawned an interesting discussion.

Well done D&ST!
DST strikes again. Although you can thank Bubs for this one, I think.

Last edited by Spark (2008-06-19 04:13:00)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-06-19 12:52:07
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6915|N. Ireland

pierro wrote:

Spark wrote:

I thought that China was slightly aligned to the US over the USSR...
It was kind of on and off for China and the US during the Cold War.

In the 50s, relations were bad for China from both the USSR and the USA. The USSR wanted more support from China, but China didn't believe the USSR had "true communism" in mind. It was the same idealogy, but China was a lot stricter. They were against the USA because MacArthur wanted to use a nuclear bomb on them (Korea) - thankfully it was declined otherwise we probably wouldn't be here today. At least, not in the current form!

Over time they gradually began to like the US in that Detente had proved successful, and China had things the US needed and vice versa. Also, the olympics were held in China at one point and the US even sent along a Table Tennis Team - all this was great. But things gradually got worse again, and were on and off between the two.
2008-06-19 13:11:22
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7194|PNW

ZombieVampire! wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

a) 'b)' partially contradicts that statement. USSR was strong in numbers but weak on equipment. A "C&C: Red Alert" scenario was fairly unlikely. If Russia acted on ambitions to actively pursue military domination of Europe in that time period, they would've been rebuffed by resupplied and rearmed Axis powers under allied command. Picture Patton crawling around with SS Panzer divisions.
The USSR also gained a massive influx of recruits as they stormed across Eastern Europe. (supply was still an issue)  Further, most of the German army was dead or in Russian captivity (there were 400,000 in British captivity alone; I know that's not exactly Russia's figures, but they didn't have them all, and camps can be liberated), and resupply takes time (that's what Hitler thought when he didn't believe reports given to him about US industrial capacity).


And your theory is basically NATO. (Not really anything that 'sophisticated.' Former enemy rallies to fight former ally.)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

b) I believe the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation was enough to stem the 'red tide.'
What you believe isn't the issue.  The question is whether the Russians believed the Americans had the resources.  If they didn't, and they'd kept going, the Americans couldn't have stopped them on their own.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

c) They weren't exactly the best of friends. Offered a juicy enough deal, China would've turned on their Soviet 'allies.'
Ignoring the fact that I'd already mentioned they didn't much like each other...............(really? I must've skimmed over that..................)

a)  The US would never have worked with China
(Subject to alternate historical political speculation.)

b)  China was pissed off enough with the US that it would have had to have been a very generous deal (perhaps something Nixonian in nature?)
Bed calls.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-20 06:26:53)

2008-06-20 11:40:52
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6711
As I served during the Cold War in Germany I say BOLLOCKs to the op's premise...roflmao.....ad infintium

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard