Why was there such a split in the world after WW2? Why did it divide between the capitalistic West and communist East? Was there a cause for it or was it inevitable?
There can only be one king of the hill, if the Nazis had won it would have been Democracy vs Fascism
the Ideology didn't matter, it helped though in the us vs them mentality.
>>1048063
As usual, fpbp.
>>1048063
Was it the result of two different ideologies held by two different superpowers , or was there something inherent within communism and/or capitalism that made conflict unavoidable?
>>1048070
>fpbp
family planning benefit program?
>>1048054
it had nothing to do with economics, just Russia exerting military power
>>1048054
>Why was there such a split in the world after WW2?
That's a bullshit, 3 major powers ("West", Germany and Russia) existed and competed with each other since maybe 1860th.
>>1048054
Imperialist desires over similar lands and technology between the USSR and the USA which both disguised behind an ideological veil.
>tfw the USSR and the USA both sabotaged the chances for a genuine socialist/communist global revolution
>>1048054
The European multistate system collapsed with WWI. Central Europe, whose consolidation had indirectly triggered this collapse, staged a hail Mary play, failed and ceased to exist as an independent power. Continental Europe was crippled between these wars, and a new bipolar system was imposed by the Anglos in the West and the Russians in the East. Unruly elements gained some independence (France in the West and Yugoslavia in the East).
>>1048054
The Soviet Union was not a normal nation state. I was dedicated from its founding to destroying the entire world through the export of violent revolution. They would ally with others if it benefited them (the "Popular Front"), but in the long run it could not be friends with anyone. It could only dominate.
Only Nazi Germany matched it in terms of pure, unrelenting belligerence. And even then, just barely. The Anglosphere just happened to have a similar interest in stopping the Germans. Even then, Churchill had few illusions about what Stalin was. FDR was a bit more ambivalent.
Naturally the break was Stalin's fault. He used all of the supplies Lend Lease sent him to conquer half of Europe. His agents in the West (Currie, White, Hiss, et al.) had been subverting American policy and stealing state secrets since 1933. They helped Stalin and his allies take over half of Asia. Most people were ignorant of all this because the New Deal Government, the media, academia, and Hollywood were (and arguably still is) literally infested with Comrades and Fellow Travelers. The 30's was called "The Red Decade" for a reason.
The Soviet Union's conflict with Modern Civilization was inevitable. Because that is what it was created to do.
>>1049343
It's correct that Stalin's actions contributed to the Cold War, but that he desired a conflict against a vastly more powerful opponent is nothing but the stuff of pure fantasy. The USSR generally preferred detente. Your attempted portrayal of the West as the 'good guys' fighting global red tyranny is mostly likely motivated by semi-religious nationalism. it certainly isn't based on facts, the West had no interest in preserving civilization against Bolshevism, their primary concern was realizing market profits. If this meant ruthlessly attacking some of the poorest backwaters on the planet like Guatamala, Indonesia, Cuba, Iran, or Indochina then so be it.
>>1049424
>but that he desired a conflict against a vastly more powerful opponent is nothing but the stuff of pure fantasy.
He didn't need open conflict. His agents had totally crippled Western foreign policy. It's total hyperbole to call United States 1933-1945 an occupied country. After the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fucs, and the rest (and if rumors are to be believed, Lend Lease head Harry Hopkins) gave him the bomb, it emboldened him into expanding is reach into China, Korea, etc. Mutual Assured Destruction and his people running the New Deal government meant he could do whatever the fuck he wanted, within reason.
>USSR generally preferred detente
Later on, when the Stalinists were gone.
>West had no interest in preserving civilization against Bolshevism
Nonsense. No sooner had Lenin and Trotsky took power than Wilson and his friends sent a failed expedition of allied troops into Russia to stop them. The West had many interests: economic, cultural, political, etc. Bolshevism openly bragged about how it was going to destroy not just those interests, but all interests every where and for all time.
>>1048734
So the ideologies were not fundamentally aggressive ?
>>1050266
They were, for all intents and purposes, both capitalist powers. The USSR was more centralized as a result of Stalinist policy, but still state capitalist until Gorbachev's reforms (and still somewhat even then).
So the ideological difference wasn't entirely to blame for the hostility between the US and USSR. I argue that it can be attributed more to capitalism's need as an economic structure to conquer and exploit resources. If there was any real ideological difference it was between the wests neoliberal policy, and the USSR's centralized policy.
>>1048070
five pinky bed punch?
>>1048083
> or was there something inherent within communism and/or capitalism that made conflict unavoidable?
Are you serious?
>>1051733
> They were, for all intents and purposes, both capitalist powers.
That's just dumb.
There wasn't. It's jewish lies.
Cuz Stalin was a paranoid dick.
http://www.amazon.com/We-Now-Know-Rethinking-Relations/dp/0198780710
>>1048054
The main reason was decolonization, theres just too many places where each side wanted to gain influence, Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. Not to mention Central and Eastern Europe, no wonder why the first dispute of the Cold War was over Berlin.
This led to many proxy wars that only made the rivalry worse.
>>1053066
Decolonization was mainly USA taking place of old colonial powers and failing.
>>1048070
faggot plessy bipartisan photoshoot?
