The worst cold war tl cliches

just making sure we are comparing apples to apples

The trouble with the Cold War era is available forces vary so broadly over the course of it, as do the commitments of the two central antagonists.
According to Peter G Tsouras Changing Orders (P. 256)
Soviet Ground Forces peaked at 213 Divisions 53 TD, 153 MRD, 7 AB.
(Plus 16 Artillery Divisions and numerous non-divisional combat units)
The post WW2 low point was 136 Divisions.
 
According to Peter G Tsouras Changing Orders (P. 256)
Soviet Ground Forces peaked at 213 Divisions 53 TD, 153 MRD, 7 AB.
(Plus 16 Artillery Divisions and numerous non-divisional combat units)
The post WW2 low point was 136 Divisions.

while US ground forces varied from 11 active divisions (including the Marines) to 21 active divisions, depending on the year in question (plus 18-21 reserve divisions) Plus of course some active and reserve brigades (several more divisions if grouped into division sized units)

The French and British reorganized their divisions over the Cold War too, ending up with smaller divisions and more of them but roughly the same number of combat battalions.

Plus the Americans had several divisions committed to the Korean and Vietnam Wars too for years at a time while the Soviets committed several to Afghanistan

The year in question really does matter
 
while US ground forces varied from 11 active divisions (including the Marines) to 21 active divisions, depending on the year in question (plus 18-21 reserve divisions) Plus of course some active and reserve brigades (several more divisions if grouped into division sized units)

The French and British reorganized their divisions over the Cold War too, ending up with smaller divisions and more of them but roughly the same number of combat battalions.

Plus the Americans had several divisions committed to the Korean and Vietnam Wars too for years at a time while the Soviets committed several to Afghanistan

The year in question really does matter

The peak year was in 1989, after a decade of massive military expansion adding 40 Divisions to the OOB.
The addition of so much expenditure and conscripting, lower quality, less desirable groups, undoubtedly contributed to the collapse of the whole crumbling edifice.

The Low point was in 1967, oddly after Khrushchev's fall from power.
(At which point the US Army was approaching its peak deployment to SE Asia. When the western powers were most distracted Soviet Conventional Military force was at its Nadir ... you have to love the irony!?)
 
Last edited:
The peak year was in 1989, after a decade of massive military expansion adding 40 Divisions to the OOB.
The addition of so much expenditure and conscripting, lower quality, less desirable groups, undoubtedly contributed to the collapse of the whole crumbling edifice.

The Low point was in 1967, oddly after Khrushchev's fall from power.
(At which point the US Army was approaching its peak deployment to SE Asia. When the western powers we're most distracted Soviet Conventional Military force was at its Nadir ... you have to love the irony!?)

I recommend this work which talks about the changes in doctrine, organization and strategy over time

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/co...Google_&sourceId=PLGoP20449&k_clickid=3x20449

mostly the changes in Soviet and American forces (post 1945)
 
If the Cold War continues into the 1990s, then apartheid will end with South Africa collapsing into civil war.

To be fair, the end of the Cold War helped enable a peaceful end to apartheid. The African National Congress was supported by the Soviet Union, which led many white South Africans to believe that black majority rule would lead to South Africa becoming a Communist state. Thus apartheid, despite being a brutal system, was seen by a large number of whites as a defense against Communism. The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the ANC's main foreign benefactor, and thus the threat of South Africa going Communist under ANC rule was greatly diminished. This made F. W. de Klerk and other National Party leaders more willing to negotiate with the ANC and to accept black majority rule.

With the Soviet Union still around and still endorsing the ANC, the National Party government would probably be less willing to accept the end of white minority rule. Then it would only be a matter of time before South Africa imploded under a combination of economic turmoil (international sanctions were squeezing them hard), growing discontent from the black majority, and escalating political violence.
 
5) My biggest: World War 2 is Black Vs White morality, while the Cold War is grey morality. On the allied side in WW2, the two biggest mass murderers in history on raw numbers (Stalin and Mao) were present, not to mention Chiang, the Latin American dictatorships, Colonial Britain and France and Jim Crow America; there was even a democracy in Finland fighting for the Axis. Yet, somehow, when even the worst regimes on the West's side in the Cold War didn't have a body count reaching over one or two million, and the West are fighting for global influence against the single most destructive ideology ever practised on Earth (in raw numbers) it's considered a grey morality zone. The fact that the Soviets treated Ukrainians horribly and the Ukrainians wanted them out does not make the Nazis any better, so why do the various revolts against despicable Latin American dictators mean that there was some righteousness to the Soviets?
You know, I have this funny idea of communism not getting discredited a lot in spite of a mostly conventional WWIII that has the USSR defeated, similar to how fascism isn't in the Losing the Peace TL; that would end up making the post war pretty crazy so to say (and I'm not talking about nukes mind you).

And I too am not fond of the Cold War being seen as a Grey and Gray affair; I'd like to think of it as a grey and black affair IMO.
 
5) My biggest: World War 2 is Black Vs White morality, while the Cold War is grey morality. On the allied side in WW2, the two biggest mass murderers in history on raw numbers (Stalin and Mao) were present, not to mention Chiang, the Latin American dictatorships, Colonial Britain and France and Jim Crow America; there was even a democracy in Finland fighting for the Axis. Yet, somehow, when even the worst regimes on the West's side in the Cold War didn't have a body count reaching over one or two million, and the West are fighting for global influence against the single most destructive ideology ever practised on Earth (in raw numbers) it's considered a grey morality zone. The fact that the Soviets treated Ukrainians horribly and the Ukrainians wanted them out does not make the Nazis any better, so why do the various revolts against despicable Latin American dictators mean that there was some righteousness to the Soviets?
You know, I have this funny idea of communism not getting discredited a lot in spite of a mostly conventional WWIII that has the USSR defeated, similar to how fascism isn't in the Losing the Peace TL; that would end up making the post war pretty crazy so to say (and I'm not talking about nukes mind you).

And I too am not fond of the Cold War being seen as a Grey and Gray affair; I'd like to think of it as a grey and black affair IMO.
Do not dare to whitewash fucking fascism (without foul language I can not). We saw this fucking in the 90s when they tried to declare ROA, and do not care that half of them are banal criminals. And nothing that in the first two years under Pinochet for political reasons, 110 thousand people were arrested and sent to prisons and camps. And all through the prisons and camps passed - that is, at least once, 27.1% of the population was arrested (many did not stand trial). For 10 ridiculous years! In Yugoslavia, more people live than in Chile, and the Communist Party regime existed for more than forty years.
Secondly, there were many Ukrainians in the Red Army, and they were treated normally. The monstrous Hunger of the 1930s affected many Russians and residents of the North Caucasus - a catastrophe for which they were afraid to be held accountable, and not the Genocide.
"Gray and black" - and who do you think is "black"? "Godless Commies!"? There was a lot of shit, too much for which every Russian communist is responsible, regardless of the attitude towards the USSR and the faction (including myself), but life in the Eastern Bloc was not some kind of an utter nightmare. We managed to make medical care and education of everyone. None of them remained without work. With the exception of Romania, and with this idiot Ceausescu, at first there was good economic growth. And many forget that the Eastern European states were initially at a lower level of economic development. It was incorrect to compare the present USSR with the present "first world", which is at a qualitatively new stage of the modern scientific and technological revolution. In conditions of non-linear, very dynamic development, characteristic for the second half of the 20th century, comparisons without taking into account the time factor are in principle unacceptable. In particular, in the 1980s, the USSR economy experienced a structural crisis that in many respects resembled the crisis of the industrial countries of the late 1920s (and it is noteworthy that the USSR passed this painful stage without shocks similar to the Great Depression).
It was incorrect to compare the USSR with the "first world" without taking into account the obvious fact that having the incomparably smaller economic and scientific and technical capabilities, the USSR was forced to create and maintain parity of military potential. Suppose this was a mistake of politicians who decided to fight with the West, we will not discuss this issue, but to compare the effectiveness of economic models, it is first necessary to determine the real magnitude of the efforts that remained in the USSR and the "first world" for economic development and consumption, and compare the efficiency Only these parts. With this approach, assessments will change dramatically.
 
Last edited:
Do not dare to whitewash fucking fascism (without foul language I can not).

No one is making excuses for Fascism (or more accurately, Right wing dictatorships in general); however, you just spent a whole post whitewashing Communism.

For example, let's assume Pinochet would kill an extra 3000 if we double the population to match Yugoslavia. Now let's assume he would kill at a constant rate over a further three decades to match Tito's reign. That comes to 24,000, which remains significantly lower than the lowest estimates of Tito's killings, yet Pinochet is a synonym for evil while Tito has gained 'benevolent dictator' status. This is hardly praise for somone as abominable as Pinochet, just condemnation for Tito.
 
The fact that Socialism is not a feasible economic system was already made during the 1920 by Ludwig von Mises and other economist of the Austrian school of economics.

For a not feasible economic system 70 years are quite good, don't you think?

Especially if you consider that the laissez-faire capitalism of the Austrian School lead straight to the Great Depression of 1929.
 

orwelans II

Banned
lower than the lowest estimates of Tito's killings
As someone who lives where Yugoslavia used to be and had family members tortured and mistreated by the regime, claims of 100 000 and upwards being the lowest estimates for the death toll are complete bullshit. This is a propaganda line pushed by fascist authors from former Yugoslav republics to delegitimase and demonise left wingers, but mainly to whitewash crimes commited by local nazi collaborators.

Furthermore, the majority of Tito's forces' crimes came during WW2 and it's aftermath as revenge killings and as a short and violent class struggle to implement a new socialist order. Another wave of repression came in 1948 against suspected Stalinists. Afterwards the killings were mainly secret service operations against fascist emigres and represssion against the populace was relatively mild. Between 1950 and 1958 less than 300 people were killed by the Yugoslav state and this mainly includes executions of violent criminals. The reason it's considered a relatively benevolent regime is because for most of it's existance people could live normal and prosperous lives and the only area where freedom was really curtailed was political expression. Unlike in Chile, you could go watch a football match in any stadium you wanted as none had to be converted into prisons due to mass repression.

Hitler's death count is by far higher than Stalin's as it doesn't just include the 6 million Jews. Not only were over 10 million other non-Germans killed in a systematic campaign by the Wehrmacht, but starting WW2 in Europe was the wery point of the Nazi regime's existance. By stating that Mao and Stalin's body count was the greatest in history you are either diminishing Hitler's crimes or you are inflating theirs to overshadow his.

People get kicked and banned on this forum for parroting alt-right talking points about feminism and gamergate, but apparently parroting figures made up for propaganda purposes by fascist apologists is a-ok as far as the mods are concerned.
 
As someone who lives where Yugoslavia used to be and had family members tortured and mistreated by the regime, claims of 100 000 and upwards being the lowest estimates for the death toll are complete bullshit. This is a propaganda line pushed by fascist authors from former Yugoslav republics to delegitimase and demonise left wingers, but mainly to whitewash crimes commited by local nazi collaborators.

Furthermore, the majority of Tito's forces' crimes came during WW2 and it's aftermath as revenge killings and as a short and violent class struggle to implement a new socialist order. Another wave of repression came in 1948 against suspected Stalinists. Afterwards the killings were mainly secret service operations against fascist emigres and represssion against the populace was relatively mild. Between 1950 and 1958 less than 300 people were killed by the Yugoslav state and this mainly includes executions of violent criminals. The reason it's considered a relatively benevolent regime is because for most of it's existance people could live normal and prosperous lives and the only area where freedom was really curtailed was political expression. Unlike in Chile, you could go watch a football match in any stadium you wanted as none had to be converted into prisons due to mass repression.

Hitler's death count is by far higher than Stalin's as it doesn't just include the 6 million Jews. Not only were over 10 million other non-Germans killed in a systematic campaign by the Wehrmacht, but starting WW2 in Europe was the wery point of the Nazi regime's existance. By stating that Mao and Stalin's body count was the greatest in history you are either diminishing Hitler's crimes or you are inflating theirs to overshadow his.

People get kicked and banned on this forum for parroting alt-right talking points about feminism and gamergate, but apparently parroting figures made up for propaganda purposes by fascist apologists is a-ok as far as the mods are concerned.

Please calm down. Firstly, I said that 100k was the median for Tito, not the lowest estimate, the lowest I've seen that was 60,000. The NYT reported it to be 70,000. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm telling you the truth; that honestly is the lowest death count I've seen.

I'm afraid I don't understand your second paragraph; you're basically just saying why they were killed as if it somehow justifies what was done. If you related Pinochet's killing of Socialists and Democrats in the same way, it would look identical. I don't think that Tito's deaths are any more justified because he killed a bunch right at the start as opposed to later. And yes, most Right wing dictatorships left you alone too if you didn't challenge the state, but that doesn't mean what they did wasn't an unbearable state of being.

No, saying that Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler is an objective fact. Would Hitler have killed more people if he had his hands on more or had more time? Obviously. Was the Holocaust worse than anything else the others did? Obviously. Did Hitler kill people at a quicker rate after 1939 than the others? Obviously. This is why I clarified "raw numbers". I don't include every death as WW2 as on Hitler in the same way I don't put every death in the Winter War on Stalin. Even if I did include everyone who died in WW2, Mao ON RAW NUMBERS would have killed more people. But you're missing the point of the extract; it's not to say that WW2 was grey, just that the Cold War alliance system had the West aligning with groups that were comparable to World War Two, but the Cold War is often portrayed as two equally amoral sides. The point isn't that WW2 wasn't Black vs White morality: it clearly was. Stalin was clearly better than Hitler, especially if you were a Slav. The point is that I don't understand how anyone can look at this ideological battle and not think that the West winning would be for the best.

Look, assuming I am completely wrong about Tito, assuming that Pinochet was incomparably worse than a standard left-wing dictator, assuming that the Cold War really was a shades of grey conflict, could you at least give me the benefit of the doubt that I made a mistake? In fact, If I am mistaken, I'll say it right now: sorry.

I'd rather have that than be accused of being a Fascist apologist (which would be interesting owing to my social liberalism, music taste, atheism and occasional feelings towards the same sex.) I have to walk home through places where I see graffiti by Nazis saying they will kill me for my race.
 
Last edited:
Man, people sure love to see communism as a "decent" system even though it lost the cold war due to a variety of problems regarding the regimes in the Eastern bloc.

Last I knew, the USSR's economy was going down the drain in the late 20th century and had imploded; I guess you can say its because they failed to reform economically and they did but that doesn't excuse the flaws of a communistic society.

EDIT: I forgot to mention this but I still hold on to the idea that WWII is more of a grey vs. black conflict (though the grey in part is more whiter than usual considering the nature of the Axis in general).
 
Last edited:

orwelans II

Banned
Please calm down. Firstly, I said that 100k was the median for Tito, not the lowest estimate, the lowest I've seen that was 60,000. The NYT reported it to be 70,000. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm telling you the truth; that honestly is the lowest death count I've seen.
AFAIK the most detailed account of those killed does in fact reach some 70 000 people, but these were mainly collaborators who refused to lay down their arms when Nazi Germany itself signed it's capitulation and instead chose to fight their way towards British positions and surrender in Austria.
Most of these people worked with the nazis and brought about their own ethnic clensing agendas into action. Killing them, while clearly a criminal act, is not the equivalent of killing democrats and socialists in Chile where the regime came to power specifically to surpress them. I'm pointing out that why for most of it's existance Yugoslavia wasn't a supremely opressive regime as you had tried to describe it. Your original claim was that the median claims were between 100 000 and 250 000 and I guess reading that as 100 000 being the low estimate is a mistake on my part. I have never seen a serious respectable and relatively unbiased historian reach anywhere near those numbers. Furthermore, many of these killings of collaborators were not ordered by the regime (and there are surviving orders by Tito that killings should be ceased) but the culprits were almost never tried by the authorities, thus legitimising the murders post facto.

most Right wing dictatorships left you alone too if you didn't challenge the state
Aside from those who happened to be of wrong religion and ethnicity as we saw in Guatemala, South Vietnam, South Africa and even Australia for example (or SFR Yugoslavia's successors and predecessors.).

Mao ON RAW NUMBERS would have killed more people
Again, parroting inflated numbers. Plenty of deaths were caused by mismanagement during a hunger and deaths of those people were not an aim nor a tool of Mao's regime. This is not the same as chalking up the deaths caused by the hunger that was used as a tool by Stalin's regime in the 30s and towards whose victims the Soviet regime showed criminal negligence to Stalin. An equivalent would be to claim that Churchil killed 2 million people in Bangladesh because there was a famine there during his term.

I hate defending Mao, I consider him and Pol Pot the worst of all Cold War strongmen, but Hitler's RAW NUMBERS are unmatched in history by any single criminal figure and claiming anything else should be considered to be nazi apologism IMO.

Cold War is often portrayed as two equally amoral sides
In my opinion it was the Americans who were the amoral side in this war. They were the ones to support the rise of jihadism and to support Pol Pot AFTER he had created a living hell in Cambodia just to spite their communist enemies. OTOH the Soviets usualy supported regimes that aligned with them ideologically and that's not amoral, that's just ruthless and cruel when you take into account that those regimes were usualy dictatorships. You mentioned Tito as some horrible mass murderer, but his regime would not have survived without American aid.

As for WW2 not being white and black, almost no war ever is and nobody is denying that Stalin was a mass murderer, that Britain had an empire built on horrible exploatation and that the US regime was ok with having a whole race be second class citizens. Despite all that, the Nazi and Japanese evils reached such heights that WW2 was much more black and white than the Cold War and possibly any other war in history.

If I am mistaken, I'll say it right now: sorry.
You are mistaken and you should be sorry for serving to spout numbers fabricated to create the illusion of there ever being a greater evil in history than fascism.
 
In my opinion it was the Americans who were the amoral side in this war.

Okay, if you honestly think that the Soviet Union was not just morally equivalent but morally SUPERIOR to the West during the Cold War then I don't think I should bother continuing this conversation.
 

orwelans II

Banned
Okay, if you honestly think that the Soviet Union was not just morally equivalent but morally SUPERIOR to the West during the Cold War then I don't think I should bother continuing this conversation.
Amoral and immoral are not the same.
 
You know what Cold War cliche I hate?

Ideological arguments in every single thread.

As beautifully represented by two volunteers above.
 

orwelans II

Banned
You know what Cold War cliche I hate?

Ideological arguments in every single thread.

As beautifully represented by two volunteers above.
I didn't volunteer. I reported @Sorairo last night, but the mods didn't do jack shit about a guy whitewashing history of fascist and other right wing dictatorships. I then felt it was my duty as a civilised person and an opponent of fascism to point out that what kind of innacuracies he was spouting about Yugoslavia that came straight out of pens of people who were literally members of fascist groups. Not to change his mind, but to show whoever might see the thread how wrong his statements were.

I live in a country where the spread of the same lies he's spouting has contributed to a situation where people openly gather in their thousands to celebrate a genocidal pro-nazi regime that Tito fought and brought down. I don't want to stand aside and let this go unanswered unlike the mods who are mostly American and have different priorities when it comes to surpressing far-right propaganda.
 
I didn't volunteer. I reported @Sorairo last night, but the mods didn't do jack shit about a guy whitewashing history of fascist and other right wing dictatorships. I then felt it was my duty as a civilised person and an opponent of fascism to point out that what kind of innacuracies he was spouting about Yugoslavia that came straight out of pens of people who were literally members of fascist groups. Not to change his mind, but to show whoever might see the thread how wrong his statements were.

I live in a country where the spread of the same lies he's spouting has contributed to a situation where people openly gather in their thousands to celebrate a genocidal pro-nazi regime that Tito fought and brought down. I don't want to stand aside and let this go unanswered unlike the mods who are mostly American and have different priorities when it comes to surpressing far-right propaganda.
*blinks*

???
 
Top