Who start the cold war?

Who start the cold war,and way?There is know that Hitler want a fight betwen western allies and SU,and many americans generals(like Patton for example)was very anti comunist and anti russians.Patton even have a proposal to SS troops be re armed,and side-by-side with US troops atack the Red Army.Churchill have too a bad idea about USSR,and Stalin too was afraid,all the time before Germany invade France,than a western and japanese alliance will atack SU.

Hey, I have an idea: let's blame it on Hitler!

I would say that the U.S.S.R. as it was under Stalin was more guilty for the generation and continuation of the Cold War. However, unlike in the days when I was much younger and less informed, I would say that some responsibility was also on the behalf of the Western Allies.

Each camp perceived the other as strong and was scared by the presumed menace they faced. Panicked by the obviously technical supremacy of The United States and The United Kingdom, N.K.V.D. pushed their scientists to the limits (the Soviet and the captured German scientists) and obtained fast stunning results: confirmed successful nuclear explosion in 1947, perfect replicas of B-29 ready for the parade of October 1947, and the MiG-15 by 1950. These results in turn scared the West and helped creating an image of a Russia stronger than it actually was at the end of 1940's and early 1950's.

But this is a part of the picture. So as short as possible:

- I do not think it was agreed in the WWII meetings between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt to allow countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria to become Communist. By interfering with the internal politics of these countries, the Soviets breached the agreement. I may be wrong, but the discussion is open.
- Then the Russians did not stop. They supported openly the Communist guerilla in Greece, but in the same time it can be argued that the British interfered with the politics of Greece by openly and aggressively taking sides since they landed at the end of 1944. Then Turkey was under big pressure from Russia, and thus urged the U.S. Congress to vote few hundreds of millions of dollars (at their value in 1948) to help Turkey. This chilled terribly the relations between U.S.S.R. and U.S.A.
- The chill got even lower due to the saga of the aerial bridge to feed the civilians of Berlin, kept under siege by Stalin.
- Indeed N.A.T.O. was formed earlier than The Warsaw Pact, so the Communists may claim they allied themselves in response, but I would say the Westerners felt justified to ally.
- Not as bad as the Russian style, but still a fact, the Americans also interfered with the politics of occupied countries. They actively took side against the Communist and Socialist parties in Italy and France, starting with late 1940's, and continuing it until 1989. About 10 billion dollars were spent by the U.S. in Italy, until 1989, to block the access of the Italian Communist Party to power. In Germany, they tried to force the new Western Germany to have a society exactly as the American style, but after 3 consecutive resignations of the German main leaders in a short time, in late 1940's, the Americans backed off and let the Western Germans to build capitalism the way they liked.

The problem is so complex, that you may consider all I wrote as an opening for a dialogue. The last thing I am adding: German intelligence officers who offered their services to America in 1945 were accepted for this new role knowing that Germany had spy networks in the territories now under Communist rule. These Germans active in WWII, now in American service, misled with intention their new master, making America to believe in a Soviet Union stronger and much more aggressive than it actually was at the end of the 1940's.

And so on... I am not a professional historian, so I do not have time to write about a subject which may fill very well a 3 volumes book.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 20, 2005 04:20 pm

technological achievements and the lack of transparency inside the allies made stalin believe he was next after Hitler so he started the arms race blablabla

the entire conflict would have been over if both leaders measured their dicks instead of buliding ICBM's. because one way or the other, at first it was nothing more than a macho thing.

And in another topic you said that

We should not forget that in the Soviet version of history, the British and Americans had already invaded them during the Russian Civil War. The alliance during WW2 was just a temporary re-direction of energies against a greater common enemy. The "start" of the Cold War was just a return to the pre-WW2 dynamic.

This is my understanding too, but neither did Stalin agree that these countries would be capitalist, would have free elections, or would have their pre-war governments restored. Certainly the idea of "sphere of interest" politics was understood by both sides, so it might be stretching the facts to say that Stalin "breached the agreement". I've read that Austria's neutrality during the Cold War stemmed from a note reading "Austria: 50/50?" passed by Stalin (I think) to Roosevelt. Not to suggest that there were notes like this for other countries, but there were common understandings.

We should not forget the impact of the Communist victory in China in 1949. The Americans had always over-estimated the strength of Chiang Kai-Shek, so his fall (ok, retreat to Taiwan) came as a shock. Combined with the Soviet technical achievements you mentioned, it made it look like the Communist Menace really was on the march. Maybe Marx was right, and capitalism really was doomed

And in another topic you said that

Is this is a subtle request for Indrid to measure his d**k before he posts on the forum?

This post has been edited by Victor on January 21, 2005 07:01 am

And in another topic you said that

i do not see how the two are in a contradiction.... or u believe science can only be explained in pretty terms?

for jeff - good one, u got me

seriously now, the cold war is a analist trap. no matter how many years we can post here and no matter how appropriate the opinions, since we do not have all the facts, speculations on what we think we know is our best shot. but that is not a proper scientifical endeavour. it is mearly discussion. nobody on this forum can give a straight answer and if he thinks he can, he is silly. first of all we can barely begn to comprehend the vast quantity od documents that are not available, and perhaps they never will be, from the russian side. or the american side, why deny it. the start of the cold war is regarded as the Fulton speach by churchill, but what does that speach say more that a recognition of the might of the soviets and a desperate cry for help by the british warmonger. i expect it to be quite clear that since the speach was delivered in th middle of nowhere, not in the american capital, the president of usa did not even attend, the entire thing was very official from the british side and very unoffcial from the us side. usa did not care for churchill's plans for a union of " english speaking languags", as he put it....of course in time the expansion of the soviet union who lead a conquer&consume policy came in contradiction with usa who wanted to stop the eastern giant. this is when both sides start to flex their muscles...first the a bomb of the russians, then the telegram from moscow, containment, then the sputnik then cuba, bay of pigs, missile crisis, jfk killed, khruschev ousted, in comes brezhjnev, stalemate, detente, gorbachov, no more soviet union, putch attempt, no more soviet union...bla bla. that is it.

The Allies of World War II.