Why did the Cold War happen?
Was coexistence impossible?
But it was a form of coexistence. The actual question is, why no major war happened since 1945? And the answer is nukes.
Maybe, but it wasn't within the interests of either of the superpowers
>>969723
capitalism and communism are two, very slight different ideologies
offensive realism
>>969723
because the soviet union was a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship and coexistence would mean submitting to their will which many liberals were actually advocating
>>969779
Jews and SJWs were intolerant of communism? You think it would be the opposite
>>969797
They're pretty small in the scheme of things. Both are materialist systems of government based on liberal principles
FDR thought he could control Stalin, the absoulte madman.
Unfortunately he kicked the bucket before he realized his mistake.
>>969723
Stalins goal was to conquer the whole of Europe.
America quickly wised up to that, or at least General Patton did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
>>969723
America had half of humanity's industrial production at the end of the war and no more tanks and bombers to build. They needed foreign markets to keep the business afloat and communist nations make for shitty foreign markets. The Marshal plan was supposed to rebuild Europe and Japan in order to both get those foreign markets booming again as soon as possible and to keep communism from spreading into the bombed out ruins of Asia and Europe by replacing the bombed out ruins with productive cities.
>>969723
I'm pretty sure coexistence was possible since it actually happened.
>>970263
>putting russians in charge of socialism
>>970263
Stalin wanted conquer all of Europe? How American are you to think that? If Stalin wanted his military forces to dominate all of Europe then why does tank and aircraft production go down drastically in 1944 and 1945? And why didn't the Soviets support the very pro communist and pro USSR groups in France and Italy? Stalin only wanted all of the countries near Soviet Borders plus Germany. Stalin wanting to control all of Europe Post World War 2 was never actually confirmed.
>>969811
>belligerent totalitarian dictatorship
Sure it was
>>969779
/pol/ intelligence at its finest
>>969811
That's total horseshit
>>969811
The Russians all had sore dicks from raping all dem Nazi women and girls. And they missed dat sweet sweet Aryan putty.
>>970405
>And why didn't the Soviets support the very pro communist and pro USSR groups in France and Italy?
Didn't the USSR fund at least a couple of those parties/groups?
>>970514
Maybe 2% of them.
Is America influencing parties when our NGO's give 2% of the funding to some liberal party?
>>970514
They start funding them after Cold War start.
Stalin actually was loyal ally to the West.
The whole II war was a big scheme to destroy Europe.
Anti Wall Street national socialist and rogue international communist were pitted against each other when Wall Street take all the spoils.
>>970514
I haven't read anywhere that they did, and if they did then it was probably in very minuscule amounts, as they didn't seem to care when their popularity nosedived due to US activity. I feel the'd rather use that money in rebuilding themselves or building up their new neighbouring satellite states.
>>970590
>Is America influencing parties when our NGO's give 2% of the funding to some liberal party?
Well, yes, obviously. At least by "2%", don't you think?
Though pegging US NGO influence at just "2% of the funding" is low-balling it to the extreme.
>>970415
>>970469
>>970484
That characterization is not that far from the truth.
The Soviet Union continually reneged on its promises to the west (mostly in regards to its intentions with eastern european occupied territories) and set up puppet regimes everywhere its armies marched. There isn't a SINGLE example of a soviet occupied country having free & open elections. They loudly complained about being shut out of the occupation of Japan (which would have become another Germany or Austria). While America was handing out billions to rebuild Europe, the USSR was looting under the guise of "reparations".
>>970972
Yeah, the US made a huge profit from the war, not to mention the fact that they aren't the biggest country in the world and their homeland didn't suffer from the biggest campaign in the history of warfare. I mean, the West didn't exactly follow through its own promises post World War 1 either completely screwing over a big part of Eastern Europe The complaints on the occupation of Japan? I don't remember the USSR complaining loudly and angry the war ended earlier preventing them from losing more men, seriously I don't remember the USSR complaining the US nuking Japan prevented them from snatching up more land, I feel they were pissed more at the fact they lacked nukes. Seriously piss off back to /pol/
>>971017
What does anything in your post have to do with the Soviet Union /not/ being a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship?
The SU was undeniably opposed to the free determination of people everywhere it touched.
>>969723
>Why did the Cold War happen?
Stalin was a paranoid schizo who didn't uphold his end of the Percentages Agreement and Truman was a staunch anti-communist looking for any excuse. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
>>971057
Post Second World War all future Soviet Leaders were democratically voted on by the communist party until 1987 where the citizens selected the candidates and the party voted on who they thought was best. Despite the party's "historic" control over local elections, from the nomination of candidates to their unopposed elections, the citizens used the elections to make public their concerns. There are so many cases were the citizens used the elections as public concerns. For example, the 1985 elections to an Omsk soviet included instructions to move the airfield farther from the city center, construct a new music center, and build parking facilities for invalids. Subsequently, the Omsk soviet took steps to provide these services. There are countless examples like the Omsk one. While for the citizens to actually have a say in the elections they had to join the "Komsomol" they still had quite the say in local issues. Contrary to the Hollywood stereotypes you have stated.
>>971115
>using the 1980's as a framework for the entirety of the Cold War Soviet Union
>unironically being a marxist revisionist in 2013+3
>>971115
cyka blyat))))))))))))))))))))
>>971126
I only stated an example from the 1980's one, if you got off your arse and did some research I bet you'd find countless of examples between 1953-1991.
>>971135
>I bet you'd find countless of examples between 1953-1991
I bet I'd find countless more examples of the Soviet government violently quelling any sort of dissent between 1945 and 1989. The simple fact that you admit that the Soviet is a single party, single candidate state while memeing about citizens only having a say in extremely local issues while having no say in the bigger elections says a lot about your cherry picking and revisionism. Keep memeing, Ivan.
>>971115
Oh, so the Soviet Union of 1945 wasn't belligerent & totalitarian because in 1985 some people voted over an airfield?
Lets get down to brass tacks. Are you disputing that Stalin was an ironfisted dictator who wielded near absolute power? That power in the SU was often wielded oppressively & arbitrarily as evidenced by the millions sent to gulags for even the suspicion of dissension? That formerly free & independent countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia & Poland weren't turned into satellite states against the will of the people who lived in them? Or do you acknowledge them as historical fact?
>>971152
Who's supporting Stalin?
>>971146
I am not saying the Soviet System was good, I am just saying that calling the Soviet System was a complete belligerent totalitarian dictatorship isn't correct for reasons I have already stated yet for some reason that suddenly makes me a ruskie for not joining in on the Murica' > USSR circle jerk.
>>971195
If you're claiming the SU isn't "Totalitarian" it must behoove you to acknowledge that for decades the state was run by an iron fisted dictator.
>>971152
Why are we judging a 1945 Soviet Union? I am talking about the Soviet Union between 1947-1991.
>>971197
>was a complete belligerent totalitarian dictatorship isn't correct for reasons I have already stated
>violently quelled any dissent
>party member "elected" as premier until death or resignation
>choice of one party and one candidate
>complete control over the economy and public
>not a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship
There are more relaxed Central American dictatorships that fall under the same category. The simple fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union WAS a complete totalitarian state until the 1980's when it became more relaxed under Gorbachev. Kruschev promised a lot of things, but he always called in the Red Army when people did what he told them to do in the secret speech.
> have already stated yet for some reason that suddenly makes me a ruskie for not joining in on the Murica' > USSR circle jerk.
No, being a marxist revisionist fuccboi makes you an ivan.
>>971211
>Why are we judging a 1945 Soviet Union?
Because this thread is why the cold war started & if it was inevitable, and the state of the CCCP during and immediately after WW2 are incredibly relevant to that question.
The cold war didn't start in 1985. It started in 1945 (and for reasons that precede even that date)
>>969723
Truman unnecessarily caused the cold war with his shitty, insulting, arrogant and belligerent attitude towards Molotov and the Soviets in general. If FDR lived past 1945, the 20th century would have been much more stable. FDR was the man.
>>971232
The Cold War officially started in 1947 not in 1945. I also feel like this discussion above is about wether if the USSR was a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship not why the Cold War started.
>>971232
>Because this thread is why the cold war started & if it was inevitable, and the state of the CCCP during and immediately after WW2 are incredibly relevant to that question.
So why didn't the Cold war end after Stalin's death?
>>971256
>The Cold War officially started in 1947
Quibbling. The antagonism between east and west was palpable even during the war.
>if the USSR was a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship
They 'were' akin to a belligerent totalitarian dictatorship when the cold war began, and that was a factor to why it began in the first place.
>>971234
Total hogwash. The CCCP played Roosevelt for a fool and took the entirety of Eastern Europe because of his naivety. His assumption that the CCCP would work hand in hand with the west if we gave them everything they wanted was utterly flawed. I bet you watched that Gore Vidal video on youtube and took it for absolute truth.
>>971326
>The antagonism between east and west was palpable even during the war.
They were allies during the war, the lukewarm relations in the Second World War doesn't mean the Cold War started before 1947, if you consider the Cold War starting when both nations on the same side then thats a Civil Cold War.
American and Soviet foreign policies had overlapping aims.
>>970972
Funnily enough America also promised after the Soviet Union that fell NATO would never expand east.
>>971326
>his naivete
America also took all of Western Europe
>>971698
>America also took all of Western Europe
You mean provide them with the opportunity to elect their own leaders in free & open elections while simultaneously lending them substantial sums of money & materials to help them provide a prosperous standard of living to their citizens in order to dissuade revolutionary sentiment?
Hardly comparable to the outright occupation and subjugation that the Soviets employed over their satellite territories.
>>971813
Again, you're ignoring the fact that what allowed America to be in a ready position to dump cash on Europe and make them financially dependent on them was the fact that they hadn't lost 20-30 million people and massive amounts of industry and infrastructure in the largest war humanity has ever seen. Not that it excuses the lack of elections but still.
>>970205
> FDR thought he could control Stalin
FDR had no intention of “controlling” Stalin, he was flat out pro-Soviet and his administration was riddled with communists.
The crippled fuck thought the U.S.S.R. was some kinda “United States of Eastern Europe” and we’d all just happily get along after the war.
>>971326
>implying anybody could have done anything about Eastern Europe getting taken by the Soviets
Unless Churchill and Roosevelt told de Gaulle to go fuck himself in order to launch an invasion of Yugoslavia or Greece, Eastern Europe was going to Soviet hands after 1943.
>>971821
>Again, you're ignoring the fact that what allowed America to be in a ready position to dump cash on Europe and make them financially dependent on them was the fact that they hadn't lost 20-30 million people and massive amounts of industry and infrastructure in the largest war humanity has ever seen
Is that suppose to excuse the actions of the CCCP?
America's intervention in Europe was magnitudes more beneficent for the people it affected than the CCCP's. Where Stalin's armies marched the Soviets occupied, imprisoned masses citizens, restricted freedoms, restricted choice, restricted goods, and confiscated wealth, but we can't draw a contrast between those indisputable facts and the salutary effects of American's interjection?
>>971826
Perhaps, but at the very least they could have been leveraged for concessions. By giving them up without so much as a word the West lost an advantageous bargaining position.
>>971813
>free and open elections
They weren't. The US suppressed anti-capitalist parties and actually rigged some elections.
US influence was more benign than Soviet domination 9 times out of 10, but don't you dare deny that we did things in Europe, in Latin America, and in the Middle East that were wrong.
>>970514
Not sure, they may have given money to the Italian communists secretly. But as it was, the French and Italian communists followed the Moscow line and were pro-Soviet without much prompting from the east.
>>972082
Why I am i not surprised. 1989-1991 is basically a long series of Gorbachev getting oral agreements from people who had no intention of keeping with them.
