What?

Read it again, slowly, then ask me something a little more substantial.

Grahm,

Interesting analysis.

In your conclusion there is an underlying message which suggests that the stamping out of communism was not about providing liberty but stamping out oportunity. Am I reading you correctly?

If the goal of communism was to empower the powerless, perhaps the goal of the leadership in capitalist society is for the powerful to retain power and attain as much as they possibly can?

Where does the massive genocide, oppression, and starvation that occured inside the Communist realm fit into your little fantasy?

Apologists and deniers are the lowest form of scum. Apologists and supports of the Nazis are thrown into prison in Europe, too bad they didn't have the good sense to apply the same law to those that support communism. (which killed an order of magnitude more people)

Doug,

You have misunderstood the thrust of my argument; that it would be a mistake to think of NATO as a liberating force during the Cold War, and why OTHER people societies (during the War)saw communism as a real alternative to capitalism and neo-colonialism. In short, this article has nothing to do with my particular political beliefs.

Zedd, your analyses of my argument is correct.

"When looking back upon this particular era of modern history it is tempting and often encouraged by the victors to think of it as a standoff between two ideologically opposed superstructures that were symmetrical in both military and economic strength thus far unprecedented in the history of humankind, competing with each other on a level playing field for world hegemony.."

Symmetrical?

Level?

It wasn't symmetrical and level while the United States disarmed and the Soviet Union did the opposite.

At the end of WWII, the United States disarmed. That changed abruptly in 1948 when the Soviet Union blocked access to the city of Berlin in violation of the Potsdam Agreement. The result of this Soviet aggression was the United States switched from its disarmament strategy and rearmed to counter Soviet aggression.

You want to look back?

Start there.

My use of the word symmetrical is not only valid but more suited to the flow of the introductory paragraph than the word 'level'. The word 'level' is dull and clunky, whereas my prefered choice of word to describe the common belief that both the USA and USSR were 'exhibiting symmetry; having harmonious or proportionate arrangement of parts' (common dictionary definition) is more suited to my writing style.

Please do not even attempt to argue that the USSR was stronger than the USA throughout the entirety of the Cold War; it is a defenceless argument that can be brushed aside with the words 'atom' and 'bomb' (The USSR tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949, one year after the Berlin Blockade). Also, 'world's largest single economy' helps.

"Please do not even attempt to argue that the USSR was stronger than the USA throughout the entirety of the Cold War"

Did I attempt that?

Why don't you read what I said.

You question my assertion that the Cold War was symmetrical by refering to a particular event in the Cold war that asserts the Cold War to have been asymmetrical in the Soviet's favour. You paint a picture of an America that was provoked into taking action by an aggressive Soviet Union as it cut off Berlin. You fail to mention why Stalin decided to blockade the city.

The fact that blockading the city was morally and ethically wrong (as Stalinism IS in general) is a different matter, what we are dealing with here is 'who provoked who first?'.

It is not difficult at all to ascertain why Stalin blockaded Berlin, a quick search on Wikipedia will tell you that 'the Soviets sought to create a unified but demilitarized Germany under their tutelage, or as Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov told U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes in 1946, a united Germany that could be neutralized after Russia received industrial reparations from Germany. This strategy was a response to a 150-year history of repeated Western assaults on Russia, including World War I and Napoleon's 1812 invasion. Stalin considered it essential to destroy Germany's capacity for another war, which conflicted with the U.S. desire to rebuild Germany as the economic center of a stable Europe. (Stalin assumed that Japan and Germany could menace the Soviet Union once again following their postwar reconstruction.)'

I do suggest a more comprehensive study of the Cold War via the use of such historians and Loth and Grenville, but Wiki serves my purpose here: looking behind the actions to discover the motives. Your assertion was simply not a balanced one given the (widely) available facts, MBD.

"It is not difficult at all to ascertain why Stalin blockaded Berlin..."

"What we are dealing with here is 'who provoked who first?'

So, who provoked who first?

I shall repeat what I have authored in the article for you MBD:

'the USA had from its very beginnings been orientated towards a perpetual opening-up of new trade and sales markets, and thus indirectly towards the extension of its political sphere of influence.'

Considering that the USA was created before and survived the death of the USSR, I clearly imply that the USA provoked (as a result of its socio-economic behaviour) the USSR.

You repeatedly tell me to read your words, did you not bother to read mine in the article? Are you a hypocrit, sir?

Now I shall repeat what I said...

"Symmetrical? Level? It wasn't symmetrical and level while the United States disarmed and the Soviet Union did the opposite. At the end of WWII, the United States disarmed. That changed abruptly in 1948 when the Soviet Union blocked access to the city of Berlin in violation of the Potsdam Agreement. The result of this Soviet aggression was the United States switched from its disarmament strategy and rearmed to counter Soviet aggression."

I stated that the Soviets committed the first act of aggression in closing land access to Berlin which you refuse to address. Do you contest my statement?

Or is it because you couldn't find it in Wikipedia?

Aside from your penchant to evade what I said, you want to play your juvenile game of using the word, 'hypocrite' to cover that you don't really know what you profess to know.

A hypocrite is someone who does not possess his stated beliefs, or whose opinions are not consistent with statements he has made.

Beyond that, the word 'hypocrite' was misspelled. It's spelled 'hypocrite'. Or did you mean to say 'hypo crit'? That would have an entirely different meaning,

Perhaps you should just grow up, start reading more history, stop using insulting words you don't understand, and learn how to spell.

There is a big difference between 'typo' and 'illiteracy', MBD.

You accuse me of evading your questions and assertions. You, however, draw attention to my typos (why, when we have so much more important matters to discuss?). And why repeat what you said in your opening salvo when it has since been smashed by the historians (oh yes darling, I do indeed read history) that I quote in my article? How many times do you wish me to repeat myself?

I am somewhat disillusioned with you and your argument MBD; if it were a particular shape, it would be circular. Round and round and round you go, clutching desperately at straws in a vain attempt to stop this sickening ride that you take us on and prevent an unstoppable tirade of verbal diarrhoea from spewing all over your disenchanted passengers.

You are a selective reader of the worst kind, Sir.

MBD

The truth is that you missed Grahams point and are making an issue of something that wasn't. You totally missed what he was saying by using those terms. He was talking about the play by play analysis of the era which often has nothing to do with what the deeds of NATO during that time were, or motivation and affects.

You in essence are going back to the play by play and diverting from the topic at hand. The issue is larger this time. I realise that you display a great deal of defensivness on these threads and wont display any acknowledgement of my point however, consider it. You are off point.

Graham,

I don't think that the desire to subjugate by capitalistic societies was intentional. I think this model is so ingrained that it is invisible. It FELT wrong to talk about empowering peasants, just as racial equality FELT wrong. The need for there to be a depressed class has been such an intrinsic part of Western culture that anything else seems immoral because of its alien nature.

The interesting fact is that Nato felt as if it was their decision as to how these countries would evolve. The paternalistic attitude of the wealthy which exists in most Western countries, spread internationally. They decided for these mostly non White nations what was good for them regardless as to what fit them best.

An interesting analyses Zedd, I agree with what you are saying. When I highlight the wrongs present in Western activities past and present I often write in such a way as to suggest that they were intentional, which is not at all the case 100% of the time.

In time I shall attempt to incorporate 'unconcious wrongs' into my arguments and articles as a worthy factor to consider. This notion is backed by credable cultural theorists such as Stuart Hall et al; an academic I have much respect for.

Thanks for the constructive crit' Zedd.

Zedd says...

"He was talking about the play by play analysis of the era which often has nothing to do with what the deeds of NATO during that time were, or motivation and affects."

That's what was not done.

It was I who was talking about 'the play by play analysis' of why the United States started rearming its military and continued it for 60 years.

As JFK said, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

In this case, the Soviets took it.

BTW, NATO was established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, a year after Berlin was blockaded.

MBD

You still don't get it.

I am saying that the play by play analysis is pointless to the discussion at hand. Yes it was you who was doing that. THAT is exactly what he was saying distorts the entire picture.

Because you missed what he was saying you did exactly what he was saying the problem was.

Why did you feel it necessary to share when NATO was signed into existence with me? Did that have something to do with my posts on this thread?

The discussion is about who NATO was during the cold war mainly during the conflicts in East Asia. When they came to be is rather irrelevant to a great degree.

Graham,

I didn't sense that you were saying that the actions were intentional. I however know that many people who have set ideas about capitalism vs anything else will see it as a good vs evil discussion and will label you as one who thinks that capitalist are intentionally bad.

I personally am not that impressed with human beings and tend to believe that we are fudging it most of the time, hoping that what we endeavor to do actually works. Revisionist history often leaves out the goofs and unintended nature of the results, simply recording the framers or leaders of that time as larger than life, having great foresight and understanding. I tend to not revere the "great" ideologies which we are so attached to. While respecting the evolution of how human beings organize themselves, I believe in a practical solution for every situation. I believe in continuous change to accommodate the changes in societies.

Zedd,

Give you last post, you may appreciate 'Mao: The Unknown Story' by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. They depict Mao as a chancer who rather than meticulously plans his rise to power, simply found himself in the right place at the right time.

I found this particular framework a refreshing change from the usual style exercised by historians that suggests a dictator's rise to power was inevitable and predictable (it is often evident in the language that they use).

Thanks again for the constructive advice.

Graham,

I'll look at it. I am rather excited. Thank you.

May I ask what your background is? If not academic, what interests influence your political perspective? Your view point is fascinating.

Zedd,

I was thinking of asking you the same question. Your comments in the politics section seem to go against the consensus in many respects.

In brief; I am an undergraduate at the Brighton School of Historical and Critical Studies (England). The campus has built itself a reputation for being exceptionally subversive in terms of the way in which it (the lecturers) view and teach what British society take for granted. This entails a critical study into the workings of the Western world and how it came to be, dominant and subversive ideologies, cultures and sub-cultures, etc etc.

To give you a better idea of what goes on down here in Brighton; the article above is actually ony of my essays that bore the original title; 'Was the Cold War a Contest Between Liberty and Totalitarianism?', I edited it so as to give it the appearance of an article rather than the academic essay that it once was.

I self-define as an atheist. I believe in no greater purpose for humanity and as such may be though of as nihilistic. I settle for democratic socialism as the best form of government. For inspiration I look to Rosa Luxemburg (political activist and revolutionary), George Orwell (journalist, diarist and fiction writer), Joseph Conrad (fiction writer) and Trent Reznor (musician) to name but a few.

I hope this info dispells a few myths about my person? I look forward to reading your life story Zedd.

Graham

Graham,

More so than academics, Sociology/Political Anthoropology, I am more propelled by an insaciable craving for information and a deficiancy in engaging in or processing theatrics. I suppose my ethic background plays somewhat of a role in shaping my processes. I'm mostly Zulu.

I do believe in the divine. Not for the dramatic aspects of it but because of the enormity of it. The respect for grandness and all that I don't know is beautiful to me. It is an equalizing force and an empowering concept also in a sense because it makes us part of something huge.

It is these factors:"religious", social and personal characteristics, that form my way of thinking.

I believe that we tend to dramatize in order to get our way. Written history is full of drama and theatrics in order to convince us of one view point over another. Politics certainly is. I suppose that is what Brighton speaks to.
It would seem that I would be in thinking heaven there :o)

However, overall, I self profess as a goober :o)

Well, you certainly are a more interesting character than one could possibly have imagined.

I am in agreement with you, friend, in many respects. You say that '...all that I don't know is beautiful to me. It is an equalizing force and an empowering concept also in a sense because it makes us part of something huge.' And these words may also apply to me in equal measure.

For me, the universe is made all the more magnificent knowing that no intelligent being played a part in it's construction.

Gordon,

Your article has a couple of minor problems in grammar that are based on misperceptions of fact.

You refer to the Cold War in the past tense. When Mr. Putin threated to aim missiles at Europe yesterday, he pushed the freezer right back to the middle of the stage. The future tense is more appropriate.

Putin does not think like a spoiled frat brat who can't manage a business (Bush), a guy whose daddy collaborated with the Nazis (Sarkozy), a scared kike with a yellow streak as wide as the tallit he doesn't wear (Olmert) - he thinks like a black belt in karate, which he is. The appropriate characterization for him is "wolf."

And don't worry about "left" or "right" wing politics on the one wing Yankee chicken eagle. That bird ain't flyin' anymore...

An interesting insight Ruvy.