was the cold war really a "war" ?

[P Kaye]

Sometimes the Cold War is referred to was "World War III".
Interested in knowing what people thing about this.  Is it too much of a stretch to refer to the Cold War as a "war" in this way?
The cold war was certainly " period of open prolonged armed conflict between nations".
But what were the battles of the Cold War, and who were the casualties?
Comments?

 

[George Wallace]

Set's see.....NATO vs WARSAW Pact.  

People tend to look at NATO as solely a "Military" Organization.   It isn't.   It is much larger than that, unfortunately the military aspects have overshadowed its' other functions as a diplomatic and economic union of states.  

You wonder about actual shooting combat.   There were little 'incidents' where shooting took place, but they were minor and dealt with diplomatically.   Soviet Bombers flew over the North Pole to challenge our NORAD defences.   B 52s' flew along Soviet borders.   U-2's flew over Soviet Air Space, one even getting shot down.   Spys for both sides played roles around the world.   Assassinations were carried out by KGB agents around the world.   Both sides fought and tested their arms and tactics in Third World countries.   Soviet subs shadowed NATO subs.   NATO subs shadowed Soviet subs.   The Arms Race was on.   So was the Space Race.   Warsaw Pact Armies were massed in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other nations bordering on NATO or non-Warsaw Pact nations.   Warsaw Pact Armies and Air Forces maneuvered close to their borders with NATO.   NATO forces routinely maneuvered near Warsaw Pact borders.   Every town in North America had an Air Raid Siren system in place.   NATO forces were constantly on ALERT, and tested their reaction times with Alerts, SNOWBALLS, Bug Outs, etc.   Yes, there was a 'war', but one 'without battles'.

Did we win the war?   Yes, but not what you think.   Not 'truly' militarily, but financially.   It was the way that communism striped away the wealth of the Warsaw Pact nations and the loss of commerce.   Capitalism won the war, not the Military.   The Military only acted as the cork in the bottle, preventing contamination of the capitalist way by communist military forces.   The Military was only a deterant.

Does a fight have to be won by brute force, or can it be won by diplomacy or economic clout?

GW

 

[Infanteer]

WWIII seems to fit if you follow the Great Wars of the 20th (and 21st) century as ideological clashes.  

-  WWI was a clash between the Liberal Democratic Order (with help from autocratic Russia) against the vestiges of absolutist monarchies.

-  WWII was a clash between the Liberal Democratic Order against aggressive Fascism (with the help of totalitarian Russia).

-  WWIII was a clash between the Liberal Democratic Order against totalitarian Communism (some would say, with the help of autocratic Fascists and Nationalists in both South America and the Middle East)

-  Some have looked to the newest clash of ideas as WWIV, the clash of the Liberal Democratic Order against Xenophobic Fundamentalism. (See Here.)

You could definitely count the millions of people killed in Korea, Vietnam (and Indochina in General), the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the various proxy coups and power consolidations in South America and Eastern Europe, a good deal of the action in the Middle East, much of the "Nationalist" wars in Africa (which were "adopted" by the ideological powers) and the countless people who dissappeared into the Gulags as casualties in the WWIII.

Funny, the "democratic peace" theory points to a general Liberal Democratic Peace occurring because democracies don't fight one another.  I have a feeling this isn't really true because they haven't had the time to sit down and go toe-to-toe with eachother, they've been too busy fighting everyone else....

 

[P Kaye]

Very interesting points.  George Wallace, you give a compelling list of factors that would support the term "war" as applied to the Cold War.
But what about the idea that the Cold War was in fact a great instrument of peace?  The fact that two opposing gigantic powers were armed to the teeth with Nuclear Weapons probably did much to prevent all sorts of smaller wars from breaking out (nobody wanted to risk unleashing the giant).  Kind of paradoxical that "WWIII" was actually a huge restraining influence that had the stabilizing influence of preventing conflict and promoting a delicate peace...

 

[Infanteer]

But what about the idea that the Cold War was in fact a great instrument of peace? The fact that two opposing gigantic powers were armed to the teeth with Nuclear Weapons probably did much to prevent all sorts of smaller wars from breaking out (nobody wanted to risk unleashing the giant).
Kind of paradoxical that "WWIII" was actually a huge restraining influence that had the stabilizing influence of preventing conflict and promoting a delicate peace...

I wouldn't go that far.  Could you say that there was some sort of "restraining influence" in WWII because Chemical Gas was not used as it was in WWI?

45 years of proxy wars is just as chaotic as 7 years of total war.

As for how the Soviets lost, I wouldn't say that they lost because of Capitalism, they lost because there system contained the seeds of its own demise.  Read George F Kennan's famous "X Article" titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" which appeared in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs.  It is chilling in its accuracy of how events unfolded - the expansionism of the Soviet Union was contained and it simply withered away; all we had to do was to out-wait them.

 

[P Kaye]

>> 45 years of proxy wars is just as chaotic as 7 years of total war

Good point.  I just wonder if in those 45 years there might not have been at least one or two more "total wars" had it not been for the nuclear deterrant?

 

[Infanteer]

>> 45 years of proxy wars is just as chaotic as 7 years of total war

Good point.   I just wonder if in those 45 years there might not have been at least one or two more "total wars" had it not been for the nuclear deterrant?

You could definately say so in the later stages when both sides had thousands of Ballistic Missiles pointed at eachother.   But I wouldn't say nuclear weapons were the sole deterrent to all-out war.   Why would the Soviets not launch a decisive strike between 1945 and 1950, when the American nuclear program was quite limited in capability and the Soviet military was the strongest on the planet.   Obviously, there were other factors at work.

EDIT: just fixed your year, I don't think nukes were around in 1050

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote
Obviously, there were other factors at work.

...to simplify it, what good would nuking North America do?    The land would be useless, I do wonder though if things would have been different if the technology for something that would only kill and then disipate had been the primary weapon?

 

[P Kaye]

Something truly frightening... like genetically engineered bio-weapons...

 

[MG34]

There was,non persistant chemical weapons and biological weapons could devestate an area yet leave it intact for future occupation.Like nuclear weapons the use of them is a pretty big line to cross,espescially when the enemy can respond in kind. Detente is a wonderful thing

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

....were the delivery systems there though to take out fortress North America with one salvo?
Since that would be all you would get before the return.....

 

[Donut]

A Soviet Bio-Weaponeer defector, Kanatjan Alibekov (sp? Writes as Ken Alibek), describes in his autobiography the monstrous biological weapons programs in place in the USSR since WWII.  They had, literally, tonnes of anthrax, botulism, smallpox, glanders, Q-Fever, etc.  Certainly enough to kill every living person on the planet, and some in ways that would have dissipated, without potential harm to the Warsaw Pact's homelands or forces.

I strongly suspect that the US policy of regarding all WMD's as equivalent to one another, i.e. a nuke is a germ is a toxin, held the Soviet leadership from open use of them.  There is, unlike nukes though, an ongoing history of use of bio and chemical weapons throughout the 20th C, from the Markov assassination to the Soviet use of chem. Warfare, to suspected use of glanders and/or tularemia against the Germans.

Could they have gotten an epidemic started without the potential for retaliation?  I doubt it very much, but I'll also point out that the Soviet leadership did regard a nuclear strike as survivable, and had much better plans for continuity of the nation then the US ever did.

 

[ArmyRick]

I joined the Forces at the end of the cold war.

I say Thank God it never came down to USSR vs USA (AKA NATO vs Warsaw)

It would have been one of the bloodiest and most destructive wars ever fought no matter what secnario you play out (nukes, no nukes only conventional forces, europe, north america or both, etc)

If it had been fought, most of us would not be here right now.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it boils down to whose Army you were fighting in and where you lived.

Washington and Moscow never saw violence.  But almost every other community on the planet did as part of the Proxy Wars.  And that includes Canada.

The various liberation fronts, although domestically founded and giving expression to local, heartfelt concerns, were not divorced from the global fight.  Governments took sides. 

The struggle took place using everything from editorials and tea-parties, through domestic disturbances, armed insurrection, border wars, regional conflicts as well as all of the "below the surface" activity involving Russia and the US directly, that GW refers to.

I seem to recall hearing somewhere that there wasn't a day between 1945 and 1989 that British soldiers somewhere weren't listening to the crack-thump of rounds passing by. (And not referring to Butt Parties here ) .

I suppose a number of Africans (black and white) Arabs, Cubans as well as many other Western countries could say much the same.

 

[pbi]

Was it a war? Yes. Did we win? Ask the Russians.

Cheers

 

[portcullisguy]

Sometimes the Cold War is referred to was "World War III".

I would disagree with this statement.  I have never read any works by any historians who made the case that the Cold War was in fact World War III.  One could probably more successfully argue that the Cold War was in fact a continuation of World War II that included a shift of allegiences following the extermination of the Third Reich and the division of former Nazi territories amongst the victor powers.  Some historians have already argued that World War I and World War II were in fact one nearly continuous event, separated by an earlier "Cold War".

Interested in knowing what people thing about this.   Is it too much of a stretch to refer to the Cold War as a "war" in this way?
The cold war was certainly " period of open prolonged armed conflict between nations".
But what were the battles of the Cold War, and who were the casualties?
Comments?

The definition is probably imperfect.  The Cold War we know didn't have divisions or troops from the primary belligerents invading one or another's national territory.  Instead, it was fought through proxy nations, such as Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Central America, or more commonly, through clandestine activities such as technology theft, spying, sabotage, subversion, and disinformation.

I would suggest that the Cold War is a term used in a general sense to convey the fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations had a fundamental idealogical conflict, participated actively in arms stockpiling with the intent of blowing eachother to smithereens, and the use of proxy nations to impose their economic and political desires over their foes and allies of their foes.

But I'm just an idle observer responding to an interesting question posed... I'm sure many others would disagree with me.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

The Cold War we know didn't have divisions or troops from the primary belligerents invading one or another's national territory.   Instead, it was fought through proxy nations, such as Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Central America, or more commonly, through clandestine activities such as technology theft, spying, sabotage, subversion, and disinformation.

I would suggest that the Cold War is a term used in a general sense to convey the fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations had a fundamental idealogical conflict, participated actively in arms stockpiling with the intent of blowing eachother to smithereens, and the use of proxy nations to impose their economic and political desires over their foes and allies of their foes.

But I'm just an idle observer responding to an interesting question posed... I'm sure many others would disagree with me.

We did, however, have something quite new â “ for the 'West' at least: permanent, professional armies raised, trained equipped and positioned for battle â “ near the projected battlefields.   For Canada and the USA this meant deploying forces to permanent overseas, non-colonial garrisons as a tripwire, plus.   The British went even farther: Germany became 'home' for part of the army â “ for most of the field force.   Germany was, officially, a 'home' posting â “ with a few extra benefits like cheap, rationed gas, booze and groceries.   The latter was especially important in the '50s and '60s when Britain, proper, was still beset by shortages with consequential high prices.

This drove the Russians to and beyond distraction; they had to harness a corrupt, inept socio-economic system (yet another failed variant of Marx's silly theories) to a voracious war machine which, unlike its Western counterparts, transferred little of real value to a profitable, consumer driven, market based economy.   The Russian military consumed everything in its path and left little behind to fertilize society ... Star Wars was just the last straw â “ the one which finally broke the camel's back, etc.   We 'won' Cold war battles every time well paid workers in West German tank factories bought Volkswagens and later Audis and BMWs ... just as poorly paid workers in East German chemical plants scrimped and saved and waited in line for a luxury Trabant.   Babushkas in Moscow swept streets with homemade brooms because that was the 'best' Russia could 'manage' with its centrally planned* economy and the insatiable appetite of its military.

Two large, heavily (nuclear and chemical) armed armies faced off across the inner-German border (mainly) for about 40 years ... one brought stability and security, which allowed NATO nations to recover from World War II, rebuild and prosper; the other just consumed and laid (literal) waste to much of Eastern Europe.   It was a war in the classical Comte de Saxe mode â “ achieving victories with minimum fighting and maximum posturing.   As pbi said: you have only to look at Russia to see who won.


----------

* The same failed model we, Canadians, use for our national healthcare system and plan to use for our 'free' childcare system, too

 

[pbi]

ROJ you have hit the nail on the head. Communism IMHO was a hideous blood-soaked fiasco played out on humanity as a result of attempts to apply the hopelessly unrealistic and convoluted theories of Marx. (Having been subjected to reading Marx as part of my PoliSci, I feel qualified to slam him..).  The legacy of this inept, sterile system continues to do extensive and deep-seated damage today. One need only look at the dreadful sad mess left in some of these countries, or talk to people from recently free nations such as Poland or Rumania, to realize what a destructive poisonous blight communism was.

We defeated communism and the Warsaw Pact by applying a combination of economic, political and military strength onto a structure that was slowly but surely rotting away from the inside out. When it finally collapsed (wth the exception of China...) I believe that we could rightfully say we won the Cold War. The divisions, bombers and fleets may never have rolled out, but they played a definite and important role.

Cheers.

 

[Radop]

There were three major wars in this time period, all massive failures.   Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.   Korea was successful for the allies until the Chinese got involved and had to settle for a stalemate.   Although there were spectacular battle wins for the allies, ultimately the numbers the Chinese could through at us forced us to negotiate a peace.   Vietnam was a war that ailed due to political interference and indifference by the population as did Afghanistan for the Russians.   I would have to research the numbers but the death toll was high on all sides during these conflicts.   Not WWIII but definitely not a time of peace.   Add in Lebanon, 7 day war, and the other battles in the Middle east and Africa, the battle fields were not in our backyards but exported to other countries.   As with what was said earlier, the battles today are far reaching and isolated.   The terrorists consider the 911 attack as a great battle win while we consider it an unprovoked attack on unsuspecting non-combantants.   The terrorists have never signed the geneva convention or any treaties with us.   They are not a government who we can negotiate with.   Yet, they are a serious threat that we have to consider.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There were three major wars in this time period, all massive failures.   Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan ...

Vietnam and Afghanistan were, I would argue, just examples of two strings or series of wars.   One resulted from decolonization schemes which were exploited   by Russian supported, sometimes even communist 'national liberation' forces.   Malaya was one, infinitely more important than Viet Nam, which 'we' won; Viet Nam and Algeria were two that 'we' lost.   Afghanistan was an extension of the second 'string' - the global adventures of the Russian communists which extended from Eastern Europe in 45-48 and again in the '60s, Korea in 50-53, the Middle East in 67 and 73 and to Afghanistan in which Russian forces or their paid, equipped proxies attacked Western proxies or neutrals.

The West, and peoples from all over the globe who wanted to join the West, was under concerted, coordinated attack â “ politically, socially, sometimes militarily and, even economically, for over 40 years.   Although the big guns were in Central Europe, along the inner-German border, the battles took place in jungles, farms, towns and villages around the world â “ and in the chic salons of Paris, Geneva, Vienna and New York, and in university common rooms from Adelaide to Zagreb, too.