A Different Perspective on the Cold War

[Nicholas]

Recently in my class on the Vietnam War we were discussing the Cold War, and we discussed an alternative view to the notion that most of us are familiar with.
We're probably all familiar with the view that the Cold War as a fight against Communist expansion, but recently I've come across a different view. This alternative view sees the Soviet Union's actions as for the most part defensive in nature, fearing an attack from the west as much as we were told to fear an attack from the east. Russia had been subject to repeated invasions from the West, first by Napoleon in 1812, then by Germany in 1914, and then again by Germany in 1941. At the end of World War Two the Soviet economy had millions dead and a devestated economy. One major goal of the Soviet Union was to secure it's western borders by ensuring that the nations of Eastern Europe had a foreign policy friendly to the Soviet Union. Another was rebuilding their economy, which was done by extracting what they viewed as reparations from the occupied territories.
On the other hand, unlike the rest of the nations involved, the United States had a booming economy, the fears of the spread of communism had as much to do with economics as anything. There were fears that the sudden end to wartime production would hurt the economy, and if other regions fell communism, their markets might be closed to the US, which would hurt the effort to rebuild Western Europe. The problem with the idea that the US was fighting to protect democracy is that, in fighting against communism, we supported dictators.

[GKC_fan]

Recently in my class on the Vietnam War we were discussing the Cold War, and we discussed an alternative view to the notion that most of us are familiar with.
We're probably all familiar with the view that the Cold War as a fight against Communist expansion, but recently I've come across a different view. This alternative view sees the Soviet Union's actions as for the most part defensive in nature, fearing an attack from the west as much as we were told to fear an attack from the east. Russia had been subject to repeated invasions from the West, first by Napoleon in 1812, then by Germany in 1914, and then again by Germany in 1941. At the end of World War Two the Soviet economy had millions dead and a devestated economy. One major goal of the Soviet Union was to secure it's western borders by ensuring that the nations of Eastern Europe had a foreign policy friendly to the Soviet Union. Another was rebuilding their economy, which was done by extracting what they viewed as reparations from the occupied territories.
On the other hand, unlike the rest of the nations involved, the United States had a booming economy, the fears of the spread of communism had as much to do with economics as anything. There were fears that the sudden end to wartime production would hurt the economy, and if other regions fell communism, their markets might be closed to the US, which would hurt the effort to rebuild Western Europe. The problem with the idea that the US was fighting to protect democracy is that, in fighting against communism, we supported dictators.


Hi Nicholas,

Thanks for sharing this. It goes to show how important a knowledge of history can be, whether one's own or that of one's society.

Yes, this is an interesting academic question. Not a new one, however. This was the Soviet "party line" excuse for their actions, and was unceasingly promoted by the Soviets and their friends in Western academia and the media, starting even before WWII ended. You'll notice that it focuses almost exclusively on economics as the driving force in world history and international relations, as Marxists and Leninists tend to do.

More importantly, this claim is an exaggeration to the point of being a lie. (As in most good lies, there is a kernel of truth in it.)

For instance, when asserting the different parties' motivations, you notice that the Soviet apologists don't extend to the US the same courtesies they grant the Soviets. I.e., the apologists claim the Soviets were forced unwillingly into their actions by their noble and innocent sufferings :innocent: and fear of another war, :sad: while the US allegedly did what it did purely out of greed and imperialism. :whack: But hold on a minute here! The US and Europe had been in the same war as the Soviets, and were also treacherously attacked, also with millions dead (tens of thousands for the US). Did that not give us some of the same fears of war, and the same justifications for being defensive and fearful, as the Soviets and everyone else??? Of course it did, and it is precisely the reason (plus FDR's foolishness) that our leaders allowed the Soviets to occupy Berlin and Vienna and so much other territory, and turned a blind eye to what the Soviets were intending to do in Europe - even though we knew it full well. Not to mention that this one-sided view of American actions and motives is straight out of Lenin's writings on imperialism.

Also notice just exactly what actions the Soviet apologists are excusing: the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians; unprovokedly attacking and conquering peaceful and defenseless neighboring countries; overthrowing democracies and staging coups d'etat; and setting up tyrannical police states in those countries. Wow! That's some excusing! And wait just a minute: aren't these the very same evils that the Nazis had just committed??!!! :stunned: Why yes, so they are. :hehe: But by implication these evils are all blamed on America and her allies - "you made us commit mass-murder!!" - while the actual criminals walk away scot-free! How nice for the communists and their apologists, isn't it? And how clever, if you can get away with it. :hehe: :wink:

Not only this, but according to these apologists for mass-murder, what exactly was it that America did to the poor, innocent communists that was so wrong, so wicked? Why, those evil, dastardly Americans!, :rant: they threatened to stop the Soviet Union from, er....behaving like another Nazi Germany!! :blush:

I'm curious, Nicholas: did your teacher present this thesis as fact, or merely as a claim that the Soviets and some people made? I would also be interested to know your teacher's response to the facts I've presented. You probably are as well, I'm sure: it should give you a good idea whether your teacher is him/herself a Marxist or has Marxist sympathies and (thus) is - whether deliberately or not - not being an honest teacher, or whether your teacher is merely guilty of poor judgment/knowledge/teaching.

Either way, I hope my response has been helpful to you in your pursuit of the truth. And I appreciate the opportunity you gave me to discuss issues that are interesting to me, and important to all of us.


All the best,
GKC_fan

[rogue06]

GKC_fan: :thumb:

[Nicholas]

Hi Nicholas,

Thanks for sharing this. It goes to show how important a knowledge of history can be, whether one's own or that of one's society.

Yes, this is an interesting academic question. Not a new one, however. This was the Soviet "party line" excuse for their actions, and was unceasingly promoted by the Soviets and their friends in Western academia and the media, starting even before WWII ended. You'll notice that it focuses almost exclusively on economics as the driving force in world history and international relations, as Marxists and Leninists tend to do.

More importantly, this claim is an exaggeration to the point of being a lie. (As in most good lies, there is a kernel of truth in it.)

For instance, when asserting the different parties' motivations, you notice that the Soviet apologists don't extend to the US the same courtesies they grant the Soviets. I.e., the apologists claim the Soviets were forced unwillingly into their actions by their noble and innocent sufferings :innocent: and fear of another war, :sad: while the US allegedly did what it did purely out of greed and imperialism. :whack: But hold on a minute here! The US and Europe had been in the same war as the Soviets, and were also treacherously attacked, also with millions dead (tens of thousands for the US). Did that not give us some of the same fears of war, and the same justifications for being defensive and fearful, as the Soviets and everyone else??? Of course it did, and it is precisely the reason (plus FDR's foolishness) that our leaders allowed the Soviets to occupy Berlin and Vienna and so much other territory, and turned a blind eye to what the Soviets were intending to do in Europe - even though we knew it full well. Not to mention that this one-sided view of American actions and motives is straight out of Lenin's writings on imperialism.

Also notice just exactly what actions the Soviet apologists are excusing: the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians; unprovokedly attacking and conquering peaceful and defenseless neighboring countries; overthrowing democracies and staging coups d'etat; and setting up tyrannical police states in those countries. Wow! That's some excusing! And wait just a minute: aren't these the very same evils that the Nazis had just committed??!!! :stunned: Why yes, so they are. :hehe: But by implication these evils are all blamed on America and her allies - "you made us commit mass-murder!!" - while the actual criminals walk away scot-free! How nice for the communists and their apologists, isn't it? And how clever, if you can get away with it. :hehe: :wink:

Not only this, but according to these apologists for mass-murder, what exactly was it that America did to the poor, innocent communists that was so wrong, so wicked? Why, those evil, dastardly Americans!, :rant: they threatened to stop the Soviet Union from, er....behaving like another Nazi Germany!! :blush:

I'm curious, Nicholas: did your teacher present this thesis as fact, or merely as a claim that the Soviets and some people made? I would also be interested to know your teacher's response to the facts I've presented. You probably are as well, I'm sure: it should give you a good idea whether your teacher is him/herself a Marxist or has Marxist sympathies and (thus) is - whether deliberately or not - not being an honest teacher, or whether your teacher is merely guilty of poor judgment/knowledge/teaching.

Either way, I hope my response has been helpful to you in your pursuit of the truth. And I appreciate the opportunity you gave me to discuss issues that are interesting to me, and important to all of us.


All the best,
GKC_fan

You bring up some interesting points, but I thought that it would be good to get people to think about a different perspective. We always look at things from the perspective of our own country.

[GKC_fan]

...We always look at things from the perspective of our own country.


Sure, Nicholas, there is a lot of truth in this statement. In fact a study of history shows it to be human nature, apparently, to tend to always see things from one's own (society's) perspective. So I personally appreciate your giving us this different view. I do agree with you, that it is often very valuable to look at things from the perspective of others. But think about it: it obviously isn't completely or always true that we Westerners don't do what you are recommending; if it were, you wouldn't have heard this different perspective in your class.

Speaking of which: Just how many human societies around the world and throughout history have, systematically and deliberately, valued looking at the world from the perspective of a different society? Precious few, I would submit. Certainly some individuals do, and it is a valuable skill for individuals in diplomacy and intelligence work to have. But entire societies inculcating in their people the valuing of the contrary values and viewpoints of other societies? Not even just knowing about these other viewpoints, but actually valuing them? That is very, very rare, my friend.

In fact, I submit that it is almost non-existent in human history - except for us, the (Christian) West. We in the West value this idea so greatly, in fact, that we have now brought it to the level of an ideology or even a religion: i;e, our institutionalized promotion of valuing diversity and multi-culturalism. And we have brought ourselves to the foolish and illogical point of constantly criticizing ourselves (for this and other alleged failings), while constantly excusing - or at least ignoring - the great failings of other societies, in this and other areas. E.g., the Soviet Union, to name just one relevant example.

So yes, it is valuable, in my opinion as a modern Western Christian, to be able to understand and appreciate different perspectives and worldviews. But it is even more important to know that not all worldviews are equally valid or equally true in every area, and then to be able to determine their relative validity. As G. K. Chesterton (I couldn't help it, the quote was too apropos!) reminds us, "The point of an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."

All the best,
GKC_fan

[Nicholas]

Sure, Nicholas, there is a lot of truth in this statement. In fact a study of history shows it to be human nature, apparently, to tend to always see things from one's own (society's) perspective. So I personally appreciate your giving us this different view. I do agree with you, that it is often very valuable to look at things from the perspective of others. But think about it: it obviously isn't completely or always true that we Westerners don't do what you are recommending; if it were, you wouldn't have heard this different perspective in your class.

Speaking of which: Just how many human societies around the world and throughout history have, systematically and deliberately, valued looking at the world from the perspective of a different society? Precious few, I would submit. Certainly some individuals do, and it is a valuable skill for individuals in diplomacy and intelligence work to have. But entire societies inculcating in their people the valuing of the contrary values and viewpoints of other societies? Not even just knowing about these other viewpoints, but actually valuing them? That is very, very rare, my friend.

In fact, I submit that it is almost non-existent in human history - except for us, the (Christian) West. We in the West value this idea so greatly, in fact, that we have now brought it to the level of an ideology or even a religion: i;e, our institutionalized promotion of valuing diversity and multi-culturalism. And we have brought ourselves to the foolish and illogical point of constantly criticizing ourselves (for this and other alleged failings), while constantly excusing - or at least ignoring - the great failings of other societies, in this and other areas. E.g., the Soviet Union, to name just one relevant example.

So yes, it is valuable, in my opinion as a modern Western Christian, to be able to understand and appreciate different perspectives and worldviews. But it is even more important to know that not all worldviews are equally valid or equally true in every area, and then to be able to determine their relative validity. As G. K. Chesterton (I couldn't help it, the quote was too apropos!) reminds us, "The point of an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."

All the best,
GKC_fan

You bring up an interesting point, but I would point out that while there are individuals who attempt to look at things from a differing perspective, few people seem to do so, atleast in my experience.

Now, if I might get back to the example of the Soviet Union. I would very much agree that this perspective is rife with problems, but isn't that just as true with the perspective that we in the West grew up with? I don't bring up this perspective to defend the actions of the Soviet Union (And this was not the goal of my Professor either), but I was attempting to show that both sides were framing the other as the agressive power. When I thought about this, I tried to put myself in the mind of the Soviets, to try to understand what they were doing. Again, I'm not claiming that they were justified, but in the context of the situation at the end of the Second World War, I can see how they might have justified their actions. We must remember that those decisions were not made in a vacuum, and as someone studying history, I try to understand the reasoning behind those decisions.
The Soviet Union commited atrocities that could never be justified, of that there is no doubt, but why did they do this? That is the question I was trying to get people to think abut here. I think that the facts of history lie somewhere in between the two perspectives, because during the Cold War the United States did things that aren't easily justified. Now, I want to make it clear, I am not in any way trying to say that the actions of the United States are in anyway compareable to the atrocities of the Soviet Union, but the United States did make mistakes. Can the support of repressive regimes by the United States be justified?

[Zeluvia]

Wasn't it Truman who blinked? FDR was already dead when WWII ended, and Stalin and Churchhill met with Truman and the "division" of Europe was discussed.

You could easily explain the Soviet Unions actions in the light of traditional war, where what you conquered/liberated you kept.

Also, the war did cost them dearly, and why pay to rebuild a country that isn't "yours"?

Meanwhile, translating "protecting US national interests" as "protecting US economic interests" isn't that difficult given our history.

Also, you should check out Kissinger's writings and his policies.

[GKC_fan]

You bring up an interesting point, but I would point out that while there are individuals who attempt to look at things from a differing perspective, few people seem to do so, atleast in my experience.
Hmmm, I'm not sure of your point here. I guess you are reiterating your original reply to me, that it is always valuable to present people with alternative explanations and viewpoints. And it sounds to me like you are disagreeing with my reply to you, but that you are ignoring all my stated reasons for my view, and merely re-asserting your own view, with no reasons given.


...back to the example of the Soviet Union. I would very much agree that [my alternative] perspective is rife with problems, but isn't that just as true with the perspective that we in the West grew up with? [emphasis mine]
No, I don't at all think it is "just as true" that the Western perspective is "rife with problems", for the detailed reasons I pointed out in my first response. If you think it is, I'm interested in hearing your reasons why.


...I was attempting to show that both sides were framing the other as the agressive power.

Yes, this is true, but it is a very minor point; it is typical behavior when people strongly disagree and feel wronged by the other. But this fact doesn't automatically mean that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right, nor does it automatically mean that each side is equally wrong.

If you think it does in this case then you need to explain why, as I have explained why I think it doesn't.

We shouldn't just blindly or uncritically accept anyone's attempted justification for something. We owe that to the truth and to the innocent people involved, especially with important issues like this one, and with so many innocents dead or with their lives devastated. As you well know, just because someone claims something is true does not mean they are being fair or honest, nor does it mean that we are at all under an obligation to give their justification as much credence or consideration as they ask us to. (Especially not in the case of Marxists, who have been proven time and again, throughout their entire existence, to be deliberate and unrepentant liars, cheats, and murderers.)


When I thought about this, I tried to put myself in the mind of the Soviets, to try to understand what they were doing...We must remember that those decisions were not made in a vacuum, and as someone studying history, I try to understand the reasoning behind those decisions.
Again, I'm not claiming that they were justified, but in the context of the situation at the end of the Second World War, I can see how they might have justified their actions. The Soviet Union commited atrocities that could never be justified, of that there is no doubt, but why did they do this? That is the question I was trying to get people to think abut here.
That is good 'historian' thinking, Nicholas, and an important question. But a vital definition is missing. Whose decisions are you trying to analyze? Who is "they"? Stalin (the only real decision maker) and the Soviet leadership, or the people of the Soviet Union, who had basically no decision-making power?

This is a vital definition, because while many of the Soviet citizens - human nature being what it is - probably did justify their governments atrocious actions, they were operating in a police state that had almost total control over what news and opinions they heard. So I would agree, yes, they were not as guilty.

But if 'they' is Stalin and the Soviet leaders and generals, - as it should be, since they were the only real decision makers - then they are supposed to, and did, know better. So no, they do not get a pass; being afraid of Germany attacking their didn't justify them conquering, raping, murdering, pillaging, and enslaving Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Lithuania, or any other country.


...but the United States did make mistakes. Can the support of repressive regimes by the United States be justified?
This is a somewhat different issue from the main point of your original post, which was that 'maybe the Soviet Union's crimes against humanity and brutal imperialism were justified or somewhat excusable due to their irrational fears and traumatic sufferings' [my paraphrase].

Otherwise your phrasing of the issue with the open-ended question "but...can the...U.S. be justified?" has the very real effect of dismissing criticisms of the Soviet Union, and focusing once again on alleged misdeeds of the US. Not to mention that by your word-choice you seem to be equating US "mistakes" with Soviet terror and crimes.


I think that the facts of history lie somewhere in between the two perspectives, because during the Cold War the United States did things that aren't easily justified.
But exactly where do you think it lies, and why, Nicholas? Unless you state that, then I would say that the practical result (unintended as it may be) of this statement, your others, and your glossing over all the Soviet atrocities that I have mentioned, is moral relativism. After all, you did just say that "because...the United States [also] did things that aren't easily justified" therefore "unjustifiable" Soviet "atrocities" are "defensive" and therefore, by implication, somewhat justified. You are asserting that two wrongs - and two extremely unequal wrongs - make a right.


Now, I want to make it clear, I am not in any way trying to say that the actions of the United States are in anyway compareable to the atrocities of the Soviet Union...
I'm very glad to hear this, Nicholas, because - no offense intended - your posts have definitely left me with the opposite impression. At best they leave me with the impression that you think we should just throw up our hands in despair over our alleged inability to make a moral or intellectual judgement in this case.

But as a general principle, Nicholas, we need to realize that that is just a moral and intellectual cop-out. A cop-out always eagerly proposed by the apologists for evil and terror, and proposed these days by far too many college professors and other people who should know better. But we owe it to ourselves as rational, moral creatures, to the truth, and to the people involved to at least make a serious attempt.

And when you imply that you actually dothink they are morally comparable, by raising an open-ended question like, "Can the US's actions be justified?", coupled with your other similar statements, such as your implication that thinking the US is less wrong than the Soviets is "rife with problems", and then once again questioning the US's morality: yes, this certainly comes across to me as moral relativism. I.e., "well, OK, so maybe the Soviets weren't totally justified in doing what they did, but the US is also or just as guilty, so therefore the Soviets really were justified. Or at least we must give them a pass for their mass-murders and tyranny."

If you truly aren't intending to communicate moral equivalence, Nicholas, I'm very glad to hear it. But in that case you really need to modify the wording of your statements, my friend, because they certainly leave the hearer with the opposite impression.

All the best,
GKC_fan

P.S. I'm curious, Nicholas, if you have read any of books by ex-communists or the victims of communism? Books such as Darkness at Noon by Koestler, The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, Refusenik by Abel, The Death of the Soul by Vallardares? These books will lay out precisely the brutal crimes and the criminals that the Soviet apologists are suggesting should be "understood". You owe it to yourself, my friend, as a student of the truth - and we all owe at least this much to the victims of communism.

P.P.S. Here's a valuable fact about communicating that I have learned to be true over the years: when one (constantly) says in reply to another's assertions: "Well, yes, but......" what is invariably communicated is "OK, I hear what you are saying...but you are wrong." So if you truly don't want to communicate that they are wrong, then you must learn to eliminate that little "..., but..." from your statements after you comment on theirs.

[Nicholas]

Hmmm, I'm not sure of your point here. I guess you are reiterating your original reply to me, that it is always valuable to present people with alternative explanations and viewpoints. And it sounds to me like you are disagreeing with my reply to you, but that you are ignoring all my stated reasons for my view, and merely re-asserting your own view, with no reasons given.


I agree with many of your points, but there are some that I have some problems with. My point is that even while Western culture might have more people willing to observe things from the perspective of another culture, it still seems to be fairly rare. It is all to easy for most of humanity to revert to a simple "us vs them" mentality.


No, I don't at all think it is "just as true" that the Western perspective is "rife with problems", for the detailed reasons I pointed out in my first response. If you think it is, I'm interested in hearing your reasons why.


I would respectfully request that you do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim that this was "my perspective", I claimed it was a perspective. And I was not trying to say that they both had equal problems, I was trying say that they both have problems. They both grossly oversimplified the Cold War. They both framed the other as being the agressive power.



Yes, this is true, but it is a very minor point; it is typical behavior when people strongly disagree and feel wronged by the other. But this fact doesn't automatically mean that one side is completely wrong and the other completely right, nor does it automatically mean that each side is equally wrong.

If you think it does in this case then you need to explain why, as I have explained why I think it doesn't.

We shouldn't just blindly or uncritically accept anyone's attempted justification for something. We owe that to the truth and to the innocent people involved, especially with important issues like this one, and with so many innocents dead or with their lives devastated. As you well know, just because someone claims something is true does not mean they are being fair or honest, nor does it mean that we are at all under an obligation to give their justification as much credence or consideration as they ask us to. (Especially not in the case of Marxists, who have been proven time and again, throughout their entire existence, to be deliberate and unrepentant liars, cheats, and murderers.)


But the problem is that it is very important to understand why people make decisions. For instance, you simply lumped all marxists together in much the same way that the Soviets would probably have lumped all capitalists together. As you said before, we shouldn't just blindly and uncritically accept anyone's attempted justification, but while we can see that the Soviets were not justified, if you imagine any Russian leader in the same position, they would probably have done the same thing, whether communist or not.



That is good 'historian' thinking, Nicholas, and an important question. But a vital definition is missing. Whose decisions are you trying to analyze? Who is "they"? Stalin (the only real decision maker) and the Soviet leadership, or the people of the Soviet Union, who had basically no decision-making power?


During that time, the "they" is Stalin and the rest of the Russian leadership. And while we have to take into account other factors, such as the fact that Stalin was paranoid (among other things), we have to ask, what would another Russian leader, communist or otherwise, have done in the same position?



This is a vital definition, because while many of the Soviet citizens - human nature being what it is - probably did justify their governments atrocious actions, they were operating in a police state that had almost total control over what news and opinions they heard. So I would agree, yes, they were not as guilty.


True, and many Russians even trusted Stalin, to the point of mailing him letters asking him to release people from the gulags, thinking that he would never have done that. So yes, the government was responsible, but this brings up the question, why did they do these things? We need to go beyond knowing that they committed atrocities, we need to explore what circumstances led that happen.
At the moment, I would propose that it was a combination of factors. The fact that the Soviet government felt isolated and there had been attempts shortly after the Revolution by Western powers to restore the Czar. Stalin was paranoid, leading to many people being arrested, imprisoned, and tortured or executed or shipped off to a gulag. The effect of the Second World War was also very important in influencing decisions.


But if 'they' is Stalin and the Soviet leaders and generals, - as it should be, since they were the only real decision makers - then they are supposed to, and did, know better. So no, they do not get a pass; being afraid of Germany attacking their didn't justify them conquering, raping, murdering, pillaging, and enslaving Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Lithuania, or any other country.


Nothing can justify those atrocities, no, though many Russian soldiers might view what they did as revenge for what the Germans did to Russia.



This is a somewhat different issue from the main point of your original post, which was that 'maybe the Soviet Union's crimes against humanity and brutal imperialism were justified or somewhat excusable due to their irrational fears and traumatic sufferings' [my paraphrase].


That was not my point. My point was not to justify the actions of the Soviet Union, my point was to show that there was another perspective, one that might shed light on the actions of the soviet Union. People do not usually commit atrocities simply for the sake of it. Actions on the scale of those commited by the Nazis or the Soviets could not have occured in a vacuum, they took advantrage of existing fears among the populace. By understanding how and why these things happened, we can better stop them in the future.


Otherwise your phrasing of the issue with the open-ended question "but...can the...U.S. be justified?" has the very real effect of dismissing criticisms of the Soviet Union, and focusing once again on alleged misdeeds of the US. Not to mention that by your word-choice you seem to be equating US "mistakes" with Soviet terror and crimes.


It is really very difficult to word this discussion in such a way to approach it academically, but at the same time not appear as though I'm defending the Soviet Union. I was very careful to point out that any mistakes made by the US were nothing compared to those of the Soviet Union, but they were still mistakes.


But exactly where do you think it lies, and why, Nicholas? Unless you state that, then I would say that the practical result (unintended as it may be) of this statement, your others, and your glossing over all the Soviet atrocities that I have mentioned, is moral relativism. After all, you did just say that "because...the United States [also] did things that aren't easily justified" therefore "unjustifiable" Soviet "atrocities" are "defensive" and therefore, by implication, somewhat justified. You are asserting that two wrongs - and two extremely unequal wrongs - make a right.


I never asserted any such thing. As I said above, it appears that my attempt to approach this academically has made you think I am defending the Soviet Union. All I am attempting to do is show that history isn't as simple as many woudl think.



I'm very glad to hear this, Nicholas, because - no offense intended - your posts have definitely left me with the opposite impression. At best they leave me with the impression that you think we should just throw up our hands in despair over our alleged inability to make a moral or intellectual judgement in this case.


I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing against the fact that the Soviet Union commited atrocities, I am agruing against the simplistic view that the Cold War was a conflict between an Evil expansionist Soviet Union and Democracy. The idea that it was some sort of good vs. evil conflict is what I am arguing against.


But as a general principle, Nicholas, we need to realize that that is just a moral and intellectual cop-out. A cop-out always eagerly proposed by the apologists for evil and terror, and proposed these days by far too many college professors and other people who should know better. But we owe it to ourselves as rational, moral creatures, to the truth, and to the people involved to at least make a serious attempt.


Not everyone who disagrees with the idea that the United States was facing some sort of monolithic communist bloc bent on world domination is an apologist for the Soviet Union.


And when you imply that you actually dothink they are morally comparable, by raising an open-ended question like, "Can the US's actions be justified?", coupled with your other similar statements, such as your implication that thinking the US is less wrong than the Soviets is "rife with problems", and then once again questioning the US's morality: yes, this certainly comes across to me as moral relativism. I.e., "well, OK, so maybe the Soviets weren't totally justified in doing what they did, but the US is also or just as guilty, so therefore the Soviets really were justified. Or at least we must give them a pass for their mass-murders and tyranny."

If you truly aren't intending to communicate moral equivalence, Nicholas, I'm very glad to hear it. But in that case you really need to modify the wording of your statements, my friend, because they certainly leave the hearer with the opposite impression.

All the best,
GKC_fan

I wasn't trying say that they were equivalent, I was simply trying to show that the current view has flaws. If the United States was fighting for Democracy, why did it support repressive regimes?

P.S. I'm curious, Nicholas, if you have read any of books by ex-communists or the victims of communism? Books such as Darkness at Noon by Koestler, The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, Refusenik by Abel, The Death of the Soul by Vallardares? These books will lay out precisely the brutal crimes and the criminals that the Soviet apologists are suggesting should be "understood". You owe it to yourself, my friend, as a student of the truth - and we all owe at least this much to the victims of communism.

P.P.S. Here's a valuable fact about communicating that I have learned to be true over the years: when one (constantly) says in reply to another's assertions: "Well, yes, but......" what is invariably communicated is "OK, I hear what you are saying...but you are wrong." So if you truly don't want to communicate that they are wrong, then you must learn to eliminate that little "..., but..." from your statements after you comment on theirs.

You are reading a bit too much into my use of the word "but". I was very careful to avoid saying that the actions of the United States were equivalent to the actions of the Soviet Union, and I was very careful to avoid giving the impression that I was defending the Soviet Union. Apparently, it is more difficult to approach this topic academically than I had thought it would be.

[GKC_fan]

I agree with many of your points, but there are some that I have some problems with. My point is that even while Western culture might have more people willing to observe things from the perspective of another culture, it still seems to be fairly rare. It is all to easy for most of humanity to revert to a simple "us vs them" mentality.
Having travelled a bit and lived overseas, I won't disagree with you on this, Nicholas (although I also stand by my earlier statements.)


I would respectfully request that you do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim that this was "my perspective", I claimed it was a perspective. And I was not trying to say that they both had equal problems, I was trying say that they both have problems. They both grossly oversimplified the Cold War. They both framed the other as being the agressive power.
My apologies, Nicholas, I didn't mean to. I was just trying to make a short paragraph summarize several others, and have it still make sense.


But the problem is that it is very important to understand why people make decisions.
Usually this is helpful, I agree. (And personally I'm often curious about it anyway, even when it isn't necessary or helpful.)


For instance, you simply lumped all marxists together in much the same way that the Soviets would probably have lumped all capitalists together.
Touche! :smile: Although, since Marxism-Leninism is a religio-political ideology with a 'Holy Scriptures' which specifically dicusses imperialism and suppressing democracy, etc..., plus strict enforcement of the party line whenever possible, I do think my judgment is much more justified than theirs. Still, I grant you your point.


As you said before, we shouldn't just blindly and uncritically accept anyone's attempted justification, but while we can see that the Soviets were not justified, if you imagine any Russian leader in the same position, they would probably have done the same thing, whether communist or not. ...while we have to take into account other factors, such as the fact that Stalin was paranoid (among other things), we have to ask, what would another Russian leader, communist or otherwise, have done in the same position?
Hmmm...I'm no historian of Russia or the Soviet Union, but I think saying "any Russian leader" would have done "the same thing" is far too broad. Aren't you now painting with far too broad a brush? (But then again, having spoken with some Ukrainians, they would probably agree with you! :wink: )

If you mean conquer half of Europe and loot them...Peter the Great and Katherine the Great maybe, maybe some of the other czars. Although Russia did not do this after Napoleon's invasion and destruction. And no, I don't believe the czars would not have set up gulags, shot tens of thousands of innocents, etc... Read Solzhenitsyn about how (relatively) lenient the czars were to their dissidents and revolutionaries.


...this brings up the question, why did they do these things? We need to go beyond knowing that they committed atrocities, we need to explore what circumstances led that happen.

At the moment, I would propose that it was a combination of factors. The fact that the Soviet government felt isolated and there had been attempts shortly after the Revolution by Western powers to restore the Czar. Stalin was paranoid, leading to many people being arrested, imprisoned, and tortured or executed or shipped off to a gulag. The effect of the Second World War was also very important in influencing decisions.
Granted, as far as that goes, but we also can't ignore the Comintern and Leninist imperialism. Stalin wasn't just paranoid, he was a sadistic megalomaniac; nor can we forget the Marxists in those countries wanting and working for a Soviet takeover. Which, while to some extent 'excusing' the Soviets, was also a direct result of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Also, as the Soviet archives have proved, the Red Terror and Soviet imperialism was not just an aberration due to Stalin's evil: Lenin was hardly any better. We have letters from Lenin saying that the Red Army needed to march into the Baltics, occupy them, and shoot several hundred priests and teachers out in public, to show people who was boss.


Nothing can justify those atrocities, no, though many Russian soldiers might view what they did as revenge for what the Germans did to Russia...My point was not to justify the actions of the Soviet Union, my point was to show that there was another perspective, one that might shed light on the actions of the soviet Union. People do not usually commit atrocities simply for the sake of it. Actions on the scale of those commited by the Nazis or the Soviets could not have occured in a vacuum, they took advantrage of existing fears among the populace. By understanding how and why these things happened, we can better stop them in the future.
Hopefully we can, yes; I agree with you. But at the same time, "understanding how and why these things happened" is exactly why I am also so determined that we don't forget or ignore or write-off Communist ideology and their proven deceptions and atrocities.


It is really very difficult to word this discussion in such a way to approach it academically, but at the same time not appear as though I'm defending the Soviet Union. I was very careful to point out that any mistakes made by the US were nothing compared to those of the Soviet Union, but they were still mistakes. As I said above, it appears that my attempt to approach this academically has made you think I am defending the Soviet Union.
Yes, you were careful; the tone of your posts just came across otherwise to me. Because it is difficult, I think. And of course it shows the inherent limitations of impersonal communication.


I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing against the fact that the Soviet Union commited atrocities, I am agruing against the simplistic view that the Cold War was a conflict between an Evil expansionist Soviet Union and Democracy. The idea that it was some sort of good vs. evil conflict is what I am arguing against.

All I am attempting to do is show that history isn't as simple as many woudl think.

Well, that is often true. As I've said, though, we also have to beware of wicked people preying on our good intentions and wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. As millions learned to their sorrow with Hitler.


Not everyone who disagrees with the idea that the United States was facing some sort of monolithic communist bloc bent on world domination is an apologist for the Soviet Union.

No, but to my knowledge most are, my friend, or else misled by the apologists. Absolutely nothing personal intended, my friend, but you do know what Lenin called all the Socialists, pacifists, and other well-meaning non-Communists in the West who supported or were willing to give the Soviets the benefit of the doubt as to their ultimate intentions, don't you? "Useful idiots." (And no, I'm not at all meaning to call you one.)


I wasn't trying say that they were equivalent, I was simply trying to show that the current view has flaws. If the United States was fighting for Democracy, why did it support repressive regimes?

Well, can we then use as legitimate reasons for the American actions some of the same reasons given for the Soviets behavior? I.e., fear of another world war; fear of Soviet aggression and conquest; fear for our friends and allies; fear of another "Nazi" conquest of Europe, etc...


You are reading a bit too much into my use of the word "but". I was very careful to avoid saying that the actions of the United States were equivalent to the actions of the Soviet Union, and I was very careful to avoid giving the impression that I was defending the Soviet Union.

Apparently, it is more difficult to approach this topic academically than I had thought it would be.
Yes, I think so. And after all, the Cold War was a complex phenomenon: not just the Soviet Union conquering much of Europe, but in some respects an entire continuation of WWII with all its complexities: the ideology, the thousands of innocent victims, the Soviet client-states with their atrocities, nuclear missiles, etc...

All the best,
GKC_fan

P.S. Nicholas, sorry for the delay getting back to you. The Cold War with the evil Computers got hot again this week, so I was otherwise occupied, and with a much less enjoyable subject!

[Nicholas]

Having travelled a bit and lived overseas, I won't disagree with you on this, Nicholas (although I also stand by my earlier statements.)


That experience should be useful. I haven't traveled overseas myself, but I try to make up for it by learning about other cultures.


My apologies, Nicholas, I didn't mean to. I was just trying to make a short paragraph summarize several others, and have it still make sense.


Understandable, things like that can happen when we try to make short statements about complex ideas.



Usually this is helpful, I agree. (And personally I'm often curious about it anyway, even when it isn't necessary or helpful.)


Very true.


Touche! :smile: Although, since Marxism-Leninism is a religio-political ideology with a 'Holy Scriptures' which specifically dicusses imperialism and suppressing democracy, etc..., plus strict enforcement of the party line whenever possible, I do think my judgment is much more justified than theirs. Still, I grant you your point.


This seems to be a common problem with one party states, dosen't it? Though there is another issue to consider here. There already existed in Russia a tradition of autorcatic rule, which brings to my mind the question of how much influence that may have had on the developing Soviet regime.



Hmmm...I'm no historian of Russia or the Soviet Union, but I think saying "any Russian leader" would have done "the same thing" is far too broad. Aren't you now painting with far too broad a brush? (But then again, having spoken with some Ukrainians, they would probably agree with you! :wink: )


If you mean conquer half of Europe and loot them...Peter the Great and Katherine the Great maybe, maybe some of the other czars. Although Russia did not do this after Napoleon's invasion and destruction. And no, I don't believe the czars would not have set up gulags, shot tens of thousands of innocents, etc... Read Solzhenitsyn about how (relatively) lenient the czars were to their dissidents and revolutionaries.


Yes, but after being invaded twice more by Germany, I have to wonder if a czarist government might take similar steps in Eastern Europe.


Granted, as far as that goes, but we also can't ignore the Comintern and Leninist imperialism. Stalin wasn't just paranoid, he was a sadistic megalomaniac; nor can we forget the Marxists in those countries wanting and working for a Soviet takeover. Which, while to some extent 'excusing' the Soviets, was also a direct result of Marxist-Leninist ideology.


Very true. But this ideology didn't appear in a vacuum. We shouldn't discount the elements that influenced it's development in Soviet Russia.


Also, as the Soviet archives have proved, the Red Terror and Soviet imperialism was not just an aberration due to Stalin's evil: Lenin was hardly any better. We have letters from Lenin saying that the Red Army needed to march into the Baltics, occupy them, and shoot several hundred priests and teachers out in public, to show people who was boss.


Sounds a bit like Ivan the Terrible, doesn't it?


Hopefully we can, yes; I agree with you. But at the same time, "understanding how and why these things happened" is exactly why I am also so determined that we don't forget or ignore or write-off Communist ideology and their proven deceptions and atrocities.


I very much agree with you here, though we must also realize that Communist ideology was influenced by other factors as well.


Yes, you were careful; the tone of your posts just came across otherwise to me. Because it is difficult, I think. And of course it shows the inherent limitations of impersonal communication.


Very true, though atleast we have smilies and sarcasm boxes to help with that here.


Well, that is often true. As I've said, though, we also have to beware of wicked people preying on our good intentions and wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. As millions learned to their sorrow with Hitler.



No, but to my knowledge most are, my friend, or else misled by the apologists. Absolutely nothing personal intended, my friend, but you do know what Lenin called all the Socialists, pacifists, and other well-meaning non-Communists in the West who supported or were willing to give the Soviets the benefit of the doubt as to their ultimate intentions, don't you? "Useful idiots." (And no, I'm not at all meaning to call you one.)


Ah, but I could be very machiavellian if I wanted to be. I try to see the best in people, but I'm also very cynical.


Well, can we then use as legitimate reasons for the American actions some of the same reasons given for the Soviets behavior? I.e., fear of another world war; fear of Soviet aggression and conquest; fear for our friends and allies; fear of another "Nazi" conquest of Europe, etc...


That's part of what I was getting at.:smile:


Yes, I think so. And after all, the Cold War was a complex phenomenon: not just the Soviet Union conquering much of Europe, but in some respects an entire continuation of WWII with all its complexities: the ideology, the thousands of innocent victims, the Soviet client-states with their atrocities, nuclear missiles, etc...

All the best,
GKC_fan

And this is part of what I was trying to discuss. When we simplify complex issues down to soundbytes we miss alot of what was actually going on.


P.S. Nicholas, sorry for the delay getting back to you. The Cold War with the evil Computers got hot again this week, so I was otherwise occupied, and with a much less enjoyable subject!

Not a problem.

[Thirsty]

In a bi-polar nuclear world, there will always be cold war until one collapses. The Cold War between the U.S.S.R and the U.S.A was not ultimately based on U.S. containment policy, rather insecurity on both sides combined with economic strivings. Thomas Hobbes had a strong point in saying the insecurity from diffidence causes men to ever strive against each other in anarchy. Since the international system is anarchic in the sense that there is no overriding rule, countries, especially in a bi-polar setting, will strive against each other out of deep insecurity ... yet they will never admit it. It is interesting that Russia is beginning to flex her muscles again ... I do not believe that the U.S. unipolar dominance will last must longer. I think a unique and new international system is starting to form...