Plausibility Check: How Inevitable Was the US-Russia Power Struggle?

[Dean_the_Young]

Simply, had Russia not fallen to the Revolution or had things gone differently, would the Cold War or a similar power struggle have continued?

 

[Caesar]

We were actually talking about the Cold War in my Vietnam War course today. We actually looked at it from a completely different point of view.
Firstly, the Soviet Union's attempts to control Eastern Europe need to be looked at in context of repeated invasions from Europe. After being invaded by Napoleon, then Imperial Germany, and then by Nazi Germany, they had good reason to want an Eastern Europe with a foreign policy friendly to the Soviet Union. They also wanted reparations to rebuild their devestated economy. On the other hand, the US had a booming economy because of World War Two, which is where things get really interesting. Contrary to the view of the Soviet Union wanting to dominate the world, one might view the United States as wanting to do the exact same thing. According to my professor, there were fears that the economy would take a dive after the production needed during the war disappeared. The domino effect had economic implications, and if communism spread they worried that they would close their markets to US companies, potentially ruining the economy.
I hope that was helpful.

 

[HurganPL]

Firstly, the Soviet Union's attempts to control Eastern Europe need to be looked at in context of repeated invasions from Europe. After being invaded by Napoleon,

Napoleon was liberating territories that were taken by Russian invasion.

 

[Caesar]

Napoleon was liberating territories that were taken by Russian invasion.

Like Moscow?
Also, you're missing the point. They were invaded three separate times from nations in the West, so I can see why they would try to do what they could to prevent it from happening again.

 

[HurganPL]

Like Moscow?

Like Poland.

They were invaded three separate times from nations in the West

Actually all that fighting took place over territories Russia occupied from other nations like Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians. Russia was just protecting its conquests it wasn't a victim.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Also, you're missing the point. They were invaded three separate times from nations in the West, so I can see why they would try to do what they could to prevent it from happening again.

And Western Europe is in much the same situation, France in particular. In the 70 years between 1870 and 1940, France has been invaded three times by Germany. Now, there's a new threat to the east -- the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union combines Western Europe's traditional fear of eastern invasion with the threat of socialist and communist revolution, which has existed since Napoleon. It's two bogeymen for the price of one.

 

[Caesar]

Like Poland.

Actually all that fighting took place over territories Russia occupied from other nations like Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians. Russia was just protecting its conquests it wasn't a victim.

What about Napoleon's attack on Moscow? Was that Russian territory or not?

 

[HurganPL]

What about Napoleon's attack on Moscow? Was that Russian territory or not?

I am not aware of Napoleon wanting to annex Moscow. Had Russian Tsar agreed to let go of territories Russia conquered from others, I am sure Napoleon wouldn't want to attack Moscow to force Russian surrender.

 

[Caesar]

I am not aware of Napoleon wanting to annex Moscow. Had Russian Tsar agreed to let go of territories Russia conquered from others, I am sure Napoleon wouldn't want to attack Moscow to force Russian surrender.

Can you back that up?

But seriously, this is getting pretty far off topic. If Russia hadn't been communist, I don't see as much of a reason for a Cold War to develop, because the fear of communist expansion wouldn't be there.

 

[HurganPL]

Can you back that up?

It's rather well accepted by historians that Napoleon wanted Russian Tsar to surrender rather then annex Moscow to France.
Of course if you have sources claiming otherwise....

 

[Caesar]

It's rather well accepted by historians that Napoleon wanted Russian Tsar to surrender rather then annex Moscow to France.
Of course if you have sources claiming otherwise....

Ok, let me start this again. In 1812 the French invaded Russia and attacked Moscow. Then in 1914 the Germans invaded Russia, followed by another invasion in 1941. Now wouldn't you be the least bit worried that this might happen again? And wouldn't you do everything you could to prevent it?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Can you back that up?

But seriously, this is getting pretty far off topic. If Russia hadn't been communist, I don't see as much of a reason for a Cold War to develop, because the fear of communist expansion wouldn't be there.

I don't think that necessarily follows. It really depends upon how things develop - Russia had a pretty good chance of becoming a huge power and that could always lead to conflict with the US. There was more or less a long Cold War between Tsarist Russia and Britain...

 

[HurganPL]

.

In 1812 the French invaded Russia and attacked Moscow. Then in 1914 the Germans invaded Russia, followed by another invasion in 1941

Corrections-you don't claim Poland or Ukraine are really Russia do you ?
Becasue in:
In 1812 French tried to liberate Polish territories taken over by Russian Empire.
In 1914 Germans and Russians competed over who will control Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states that were taken over by Russia earlier.
In 1941 Germany and Russia fought over Polish and Ukrainian territories they invaded together in 1939.

So sorry, but if two dogs fight over a bone only the bone is a victim. Not the dog that was bitten in the fight over the bone.

Now wouldn't you be the least bit worried that this might happen again?

This is false assumption, because Russia wasn't fighting in defence but it was fighting over territories IT invaded earlier.

 

[Caesar]

. Corrections-you don't claim Poland or Ukraine are really Russia do you ?
Becasue in:
In 1812 French tried to liberate Polish territories taken over by Russian Empire.
In 1914 Germans and Russians competed over who will control Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states that were taken over by Russia earlier.
In 1941 Germany and Russia fought over Polish and Ukrainian territories they invaded together in 1939.

So sorry, but if two dogs fight over a bone only the bone is a victim. Not the dog that was bitten in the fight over the bone.

This is false assumption, because Russia wasn't fighting in defence but it was fighting over territories IT invaded earlier.

But that isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to discuss the whether a Cold War between the Soviet Union and United States was inevitable. Whether or not the territories that were invaded really belonged to the Russians or were simply occupied territories is different matter from how the Russians themselves percieved it.

 

[HurganPL]

is different matter from how the Russians themselves percieved it.

Then perhaps the problem is with perception of Russia towards the world, rather then the world itself.
If that is the case a conflict with the West seems plausible.
Especially looking at aggresive rhetoric towards Britain, Catholicism and others in Imperial Russia.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That is an incredibly Poland-centric view. Napoleon didn't invade Russia to "liberate Polish territories", he did it to crush Russia to dominate Europe. Germany in both wars had the same object in mind.

There is no doubt that Poland has been screwed by its location, but you're really distorting history.

. Corrections-you don't claim Poland or Ukraine are really Russia do you ?
Becasue in:
In 1812 French tried to liberate Polish territories taken over by Russian Empire.
In 1914 Germans and Russians competed over who will control Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states that were taken over by Russia earlier.
In 1941 Germany and Russia fought over Polish and Ukrainian territories they invaded together in 1939.

So sorry, but if two dogs fight over a bone only the bone is a victim. Not the dog that was bitten in the fight over the bone.

This is false assumption, because Russia wasn't fighting in defence but it was fighting over territories IT invaded earlier.

 

[HurganPL]

Napoleon didn't invade Russia to "liberate Polish territories"

Actually he did proclaim it as reason for the war and named war with Russia "Second Polish War". He also set up a comission for restoring the Polish Kingdom. Sadly he failed and Russia enslaved us again for almost a century.

 

[Caesar]

Then perhaps the problem is with perception of Russia towards the world, rather then the world itself.
If that is the case a conflict with the West seems plausible.
Especially looking at aggresive rhetoric towards Britain, Catholicism and others in Imperial Russia.

I think we may be getting somewhere.
Now, place yourself in the mind of a Russian leader following World War Two. Your country has just been devestated. You have approximately 10,700,000 soldiers dead and 11,900,000 civilians dead. Your economy is in horrible shape. Given that you have been invaded from Western Europe three times in the past, how do you go about trying to prevent this from ever happening again? How do you rebuild your economy? What would you do in this situation?

What the Soviets decided to do was to ensure that the nations of Eastern Europe would have a friendly foreign policy toward the Soviet Union. They also extracted reparations from Germany and other countries to help rebuild their devestated economy?

 

[DominusNovus]

We were actually talking about the Cold War in my Vietnam War course today. We actually looked at it from a completely different point of view.
Firstly, the Soviet Union's attempts to control Eastern Europe need to be looked at in context of repeated invasions from Europe. After being invaded by Napoleon, then Imperial Germany, and then by Nazi Germany, they had good reason to want an Eastern Europe with a foreign policy friendly to the Soviet Union. They also wanted reparations to rebuild their devestated economy. On the other hand, the US had a booming economy because of World War Two, which is where things get really interesting. Contrary to the view of the Soviet Union wanting to dominate the world, one might view the United States as wanting to do the exact same thing. According to my professor, there were fears that the economy would take a dive after the production needed during the war disappeared. The domino effect had economic implications, and if communism spread they worried that they would close their markets to US companies, potentially ruining the economy.
I hope that was helpful.

I wouldn't take that economic rationale for US actions quite to heart. The US economy avoided a postwar slump by managing the return of veterans to the labor force (GI bill) and due to the high level of employment during the war, when spending was curtailed (Rosey the Riveter couldn't buy anything, so she saved her money).

The US secured its important markets of the time through the Marshall plan, hardly a military action. Indeed, the US managed to cement its allies to its cause more through economic means that benefited each state than the military oppression the Soviets used (no other word for it, they brutally suppressed any moves towards democracy).

The Domino theory was used in reference to such places as Korea and Vietnam, hardly important markets of the time.

So, yeah, Russia did what it did in Eastern Europe because it was paranoid. I wouldn't say they were anymore rightfully paranoid than any other European country (save Britain, who had a nice moat around their country, so they had little reason to be paranoid). The entire continent was convinced everyone else was after them (which, as an aside, played a part in enabling the British and US to dominate the world). So, since Russia was the big kid on the block after WWII, they were the ones that got to have buffer states. If Germany had won the war, then it would have had its own buffer states (bad analogy, but you get the drift).

 

[Bmao]

Actually he did proclaim it as reason for the war and named war with Russia "Second Polish War". He also set up a comission for restoring the Polish Kingdom. Sadly he failed and Russia enslaved us again for almost a century.

Poland can certainly be the perpetual victim in all these conflicts, as could Ukraine and the Baltics to a lesser extent, but mostly because of by proximity rather than conspiracy. Because Poland is located between Germany and Russia, two peoples who have a visceral hatred of one another, it is almost inevitable that it is the poor country(s) in the middle that always gets the shortest end of the stick. The ultimate goal in all of these wars, however, had always been the destruction of the larger power, either France or Germany in the Russians case, and the destruction of Russia to the latter, rather than the little ones in between.