The Generic Cold War Crisis

I got a thought today. The Korean war, the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin airlift where sort of intelligence failures on the communist part where they underestimated the determination and ability of the US and their allies and took offensive or provoking actions.

Generalizing that to every cold war crisis is of course very one-sided and pro-US. But still, did the cold war crises follow a distinct patter or maybe a few different distinct patterns?
 
Possibly but you have to remember the Cuban missle crisis began over American missles in Turkey.

Also if you look at things like Vietnam,Bay of Pigs and SDI both superpowers are somewhat equally to blame.
 
It was more of a question. Could the crises of the cold war be divided into neat categories even be simplified to some sort of generic discription.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
It was more of a question. Could the crises of the cold war be divided into neat categories even be simplified to some sort of generic discription.

It always seemed to me that any time there was a flare-up between the two superpowers (whether directly or through catspaws), it was usually involving some indigenous leader in the area that was the hotspot.

During the Berlin Blockade crisis, when you had Pattons and T-55s staring at each other across a city block of Berlin, you had West Berlin mayor Willi Braun. He was a huge firebrand, openly advocating an armed intervention from the West to push to Berlin, and couldn't have made matters easier for NATO.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was Castro.

During Vietnam, there was Ho Chi Minh. (And Vo Nguyen Giap, but Ho fits this better.)

During Korea, there was Kim Il Sung in the North, and Singman Rhee in the South.

These people seem to gravitate to the spotlight. And many times, it's a wonder if the Crises that seem to swirl around them would have been caused had they not been there, pushing and prodding.
 
It always seemed to me that any time there was a flare-up between the two superpowers (whether directly or through catspaws), it was usually involving some indigenous leader in the area that was the hotspot.

During the Berlin Blockade crisis, when you had Pattons and T-55s staring at each other across a city block of Berlin, you had West Berlin mayor Willi Braun. He was a huge firebrand, openly advocating an armed intervention from the West to push to Berlin, and couldn't have made matters easier for NATO.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was Castro.

During Vietnam, there was Ho Chi Minh. (And Vo Nguyen Giap, but Ho fits this better.)

During Korea, there was Kim Il Sung in the North, and Singman Rhee in the South.

These people seem to gravitate to the spotlight. And many times, it's a wonder if the Crises that seem to swirl around them would have been caused had they not been there, pushing and prodding.

What a makes a Cold War crisis is a situation in which both superpowers think they have something to gain or to lose if the status quo is disturbed. Arguably, the events in Cuba, Vietnam or Korea could have stayed local had the US and the USSR not made them a part of the Cold War rivalry by their meddling. But once you have defined your zones of influence and lines of demarcation and you believe in something like a domino theory, you are destined to drift into such crises.

Thus, small nations within the "zone", that is the area liable to fall right within the one claimed by both powers as strategically important, will have to accept that their situation has frozen solid "for the duration"; if they do not comply and play by the rules, we will have a Cold War crisis.

Of course, many will not comply because leaders or aspiring leaders of small national movements are often the greatest potential winners when an artificial status quo is disturbed. I say artificial, because nations and political movements rise and fall, as do local leaders. Great power rivalry cannot freeze historical and societal development within nations and regions even if that would make things so much easier to run smoothly.

Thus, Cold War crises happen because aiming at a permanent status quo is anti-historical, not because of those pesky indigenous leaders.:p
 
Ahem. Regarding Cuban Missile Crisis.

At that time USA had hundreds of IRBMs stationed in Turkey and Italy and other places in Europe, was deploying second hundred of homeland based ICBMs and had around 1,500 strategic bombers, and dozens of long range SLBMs on SSBNs. USA had 20 something thousand nukes total.

Soviets had less than hundred strategic bombers, 20 or 30 ICBMs and some 3,000 nukes total. Soviets were outnumbered and outgunned at every turn and tried to deploy missiles and bombers to Cuba as a deterrent against huge NATO nuclear superiority. Because like you know, at the time USA had acquired comparably close bases to USSR and WarPac territories.
 
MacCaulays argument boils down to the crises beeing driven by local forces while DrakonFin claim it was driven by more or less rational leaders sit in Moscow and Washington and play a game of poker.

I think I join MacCaulay. Moscow and Washington had to deal with not only the crises made by local leaders but also more or less random crises like the U2 shot down, KAL007 and U137.

Funny, I never thought about it that way.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is it supposed to be fair grdja83 ?

I think your point about US nuclear superiority supports the initial point. The Sovs saw an "unfair" nuclear situation. But they had a weird cognitive dissonance, they saw the west having the will to build up its nuclear superiority, but then at the same time thought that the west would not use its unfair advantage to shut down the Sovs attempt to sneakily balance the books.

Of course the US didn't tolerate that. It used its unfair advantage to get the Russians to back down, (while giving the Sovs a more respectful treatment in private than in public). Of course the Russians should have expected this. In the end the US accepted nuclear parity from the Russians but made them work for it industrially over the intervening ten years, they did not let them accomplish it with a Cuban shortcut.
 
Top