OSS/CIA not dominated by bluebloods

An interesting analysis. I did not think things in Europe were so close (did Communists ever come to power fairly through free elections)?

Europe was never really close: by the end of the Cold War it was apparent to almost everyone who held the high ground. That's not to say the West was perfect of course, just that Communism failed.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War played out mainly in the Third World, where Soviet ideals about socialism and anti-imperialism were wildly popular, and where mistrust for the West and the United States ran deep.
 
"Was the CIA actually critical? The KGB always beat it tactically in my understanding."

We'll probably never know for sure...

But I suspect it was the Cold War's early years, perhaps 1945-60, that were the critical ones -- in which it might have gone either way. After that, the war became more like a "war of attrition" -- from which point the enormous economic and technological advantages of the U.S. heavily affected the eventual outcome...

Despite its later failures and sloppiness, I suspect CIA's early successes set the course of the Cold War.

Can you cite any historians supporting this take on Cold War strategy?

This 'CIA-as-America's-geatest-weapon' doesn't sound right to me. There are some pretty serious defence & geopolitical wonks on this site, and I'm sure they'd disagree with your analysis of the Agency beating the Soviets (just like most here disagree with the concept of Reagan single-handedly beating the Warsaw Pact).
 
An interesting analysis. I did not think things in Europe were so close (did Communists ever come to power fairly through free elections)?

Not, to my knowledge, in Europe.

There were "Eurocommunists" that were ostensibly not slaves of Moscow, but I don't think they were ever dominant.

There is a state in India governed by the Communist Party (Kerala), though.
 
Can you cite any historians supporting this take on Cold War strategy?

Nope, sorry; I doubt it was a deliberate "strategy" so much as merely the way events unfolded, in their seemingly-haphazard fashion. My impressions come from an outsider's non-acedemic reading in the area since the mid-60's.

This 'CIA-as-America's-geatest-weapon' doesn't sound right to me. There are some pretty serious defence & geopolitical wonks on this site, and I'm sure they'd disagree with your analysis of the Agency beating the Soviets (just like most here disagree with the concept of Reagan single-handedly beating the Warsaw Pact).

I doubt if many would claim CIA was the "greatest" weapon. In my own view, U.S. economic strength, technological strength, and cultural strength were all much greater weapons. But I do suspect CIA greatly helped the U.S. to make the most of those weapons, avoiding other policy choices that might well have left us Dead or Red.
 
I doubt if many would claim CIA was the "greatest" weapon. In my own view, U.S. economic strength, technological strength, and cultural strength were all much greater weapons. But I do suspect CIA greatly helped the U.S. to make the most of those weapons, avoiding other policy choices that might well have left us Dead or Red.

Okay, so you disavow your earlier statements thanking God for the ruthless pragmatists at the CIA preventing an American defeat in the Cold War/preventing a nuclear holocaust.

Or maybe not.

Welcome to debating at AH.com.;)
 
Top