Was the Cold War a war or political strategy?

2015-09-02T23:23:57-04:00

This is something that really gets to some of us. I have heard this a few different ways. I recall having this discussion in college a long time ago. There were some conflict in the era but they became into an identity of their own. Those were Korea and Vietnam. If you want to call Cuba one also you can. We were in a political struggle with communism. I didn't then and still don't see the difference with many other periods of time when were were postured against other counties like Spain. The Maine is still regarded as a bit of question how that was blown up.

To me I see the GWOT pretty much the same thing as the Cold War. Instead of fighting communism we are fighting against a ideology. There were two wars that came of it and a bunch of small conflicts too but you don't see many Iraq vets claim to be a GWOT vet but they claim to be an Iraq Vet instead.

Is it just an name for an Era more so than an actual conflict? We are pretty much always in some sort of conflict but we really haven't named them like this. For me it is more of a strategy. It lead to the fall of the USSR. It really wasn't much of a fall. They came back with guys like Putin to only continue what was thought to have ended.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2015 11:26 PM

2015-09-02T23:26:49-04:00

Posturing, both politically and militarily. But it was deadly serious. One need only look to the Cuban Missile crisis to realize that.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2015 11:35 PM

2015-09-02T23:35:39-04:00

I have often thought of the same thing. There has been various times in history where posturing has been similar to this. As for the USS Maine, I have heard in the past that a politician will never let a tragedy go to waste. In this case we didn't. We have done this in the past to with the UK to some extent after the Revolution. It is an interesting way to look at it.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 2 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-09-02T23:38:03-04:00

Wow! OK. Yeah now that I think about it. I would say it was a Political Strategy. Little Wars thru 3rd Parties. Rhetoric and Posturing from the 2 Big Brothers. Excellent Point.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 2 at 2015 11:49 PM

2015-09-02T23:49:02-04:00

The only thing that kept the Cold War from going hot was the fear of nuclear weapons; the struggles were just as real, but there was a MAD limit to them that all sides played. As a result, the only hot wars we fought were fought by proxy.

Response by SFC William Hodges made Sep 3 at 2015 1:28 AM

2015-09-03T01:28:48-04:00

The Cold War basically took up where World War II left off. Just a little historical context here. To understand how the cold wr began you have take a look at 20th century history. We fought World War II because of draconian peace settlements requirements placed on Germany at the end of World War 1. Germany was force to make heavy war reprtions back to the allied powers that led to the economic depression they experienced during the 20 and 30. This let Adolf Hitler to rise to power and the rise of Nazism in Germany.

If you really want to explore the beginning of the Cold War, you have to really look a at the 20th Centuries greatest double crooks. Hitllers violation of the Non Agression Pact with Joseph Stalin and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. This led to Stalin's land grab in Eastern Europe that formed the buffer states between the westen allies that would eventual form the Warsaw Pact. It was Winston Churchill that first feared what was happening between the Soviests and the Western Allies. In one of his speeches at the conclusion of World War II he stated that The Soviest where subjjustion vast numbers of Eastern Eurpeans to enslavement under communism and that a Great "Cold War" has descended upon the world. Probably not the exact quit but you should understand the context.

Churhhill wasn't the western leader who feared what the soviets where doing. In the Pacific theater, the war with Japan was raging. The United States had just secure the Islands of Okinwa and other islands surrounding the Japaanesse main islands. The U.S. Military Service Cheifs and President Truman was faced with the daunting task of how to conclude the War with Japan. It was feared that an allied invasion of the main island world millions of allied casualties and would the war would drag into 1947 or 1948.

Trumen, seeing what was happening in eastern Euroup with the soviet occupian forces, feared that a soviet entry into the pacific theater would allow the soviets to gain large land areas in Asia that they would not release. This is where the two atomic bombs "Fata Man" and "Little Boy" come into the stage.

This new weapon of warfare offered Truman an Opportunity to bring the the war in the Pacific to a quick close by shocking the Japanesse with the power of this new weapon and ultimately of stopping the Soviet Expasinsion into the Pacific Region.

Ian Hind sight, many of today's people view the use of atomic weapons on Japan not to be oral. However, they look at this through the vision of hindsight. The fact that that allies was facing a Japanesse enemy that was conducting "Total War" to defend the main islands possible meant millions of casualties on both sides that would drag the war out for another two years. The world was tired of the war and wanted it over with quickly. The effects of radiation wasn't well known. the U.S. Army Air Force was conducting massive firm bomb raids on Japaneese Cities that was causing just as much death and destruction as these two weapons would cause. Finally, with the effect of ending the war quickly, it was hoped that this would limit the Sovieits from gaining more territory.

In the end, the atomic weapons did help bring about the end of World War II. But also signified the beginning of the Cold War. The fear of Nuclear Weapons Prevented the Cold War from going Hot. Korea, the Cuban Missle Crises, Vietnam Nam, Grenada, and the other less kown incident in the world would become Hot Spots that threaten to bring to Cold War to A Nuclear War. The Soviets would you Eastern Europe terrorist in an attempt to destabilize the west. In fact Soviet doctrine view using terrorist groups in Western Europe a a key in paving the way for the Armies of the Warsaw Pact invasion. Terrorist Groups like Baander Abas, and the Red Brigade conducted several attacks against U.S. forces. In Germany. Just ask any soldier that served in The Unisteds Army in the 70's and 80's about the Munich Olympics Masssare wher the PLO killed serval Isarli Olymic Athlets, or pulling Augmenttion Gaurd at a NATO site. The Soviets began using terrorist from the Middle East in an attempt to destabilizes Isareal and Freindly Arab counties that favored the West. The fall of the Shaw of Irwn to allow The return of the New Ayatollah of Iran to take power in Iran. The fall of the Shaw would usher in years later the War on Terror. Soviets would underestimate the Arabs in Afghanistan. We support the muhajedenn until the Soviest withdrew.

Many thought this was the end of Cold War. Naw, it's just half time. I fear that the second half is just beginning and the soviets oh, Russions just scored on the opening drive.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Sep 3 at 2015 1:41 AM

2015-09-03T01:41:16-04:00

It was, above all, a clash of ideologies punctuated by a few regional conflicts that then took on lives of their own. It's hard to compare the current GWOT, or Long War as it was once called, to the Cold War, but that's the best most of us can do. Most of the preceding generation doesn't remember life without the Cold War or the GWOT; it's really our grandparents and people of that generation that remember what life was like before 1939. Sadly, most of them are no longer with us.

Most people directly involved in the prosecution of the GWOT would argue, rightly, that it isn't a war against terror; rather, it's a war against terrorists, specifically those influenced by a very radical brand of Islam and its attendant fanaticism. Can you compare that to the Third Reich or the Vietcong or the North Korean mindset? Maybe, but I think that oversimplifies the matter. Communism was and is a largely economic set of beliefs and only, literally, a secondary source of politics. It's more accurate to call Soviet Russia, Cuba and North Korea former or current totalitarian regimes or command states, because that's exactly what they were or still are.

In that way, you can compare the apples of the Cold War to the oranges of the current war, whatever that is any more. Given a choice, I'd rather be fighting the Cold War than the one we find ourselves currently in, which has a lot less stability and a lot more potential volatility than at any time I can remember during my lifetime.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2015 10:00 AM

2015-09-03T10:00:55-04:00

Yes. The war was never fought between the US and the USSR, but it was fought between our allies often with one of the major powers physically engaged in the conflict.

But you are also right it was characterized by a political strategy of isolation and mutually assured destruction. An arms race that eventually bankrupted one side led the "win" of the other.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Sep 3 at 2015 12:12 PM

2015-09-03T12:12:30-04:00

For the Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Diplomats; it was strategy. For the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. It was very real, because if the Suits fail, then the Military goes to work.