Your thoughts about who was ultimately responsible for the start of the Cold War?
Printable View
Your thoughts about who was ultimately responsible for the start of the Cold War?
The West, based on their magnified fears of the Heartland Theory.
All of the countries fought over are responsible. Some are Cuba, Korea and Vietnam. They were unable to make a government everybody agreed on and caused there to be conflict between the West and the East.
you trolling jorbaud?
How were Cuba, Korea and Vietnam responsible?
If they had decided on a government instead of having a dispute we would not have gotten into wars during the cold war significantly decreasing the impact of the cold war.
Cuba was doing fine and had democracy but changed. North and South Korea wanted different governments instead of agreeing. Same with Vietnam.
Countries have a right to change or dispute their own governments, that's their own choice. If a blame game comes from instances of Vietnam, Korea, and so forth, I would say the fault lies with the outside forces that intervened in an attempt to sway the dispute in their own favour.
They did decide on gov'ts, jorbaud. Cuba's banana republic was overthrown, both Koreas were gov'ts run by outside forces and Vietnam had been fighting the French for their independence and winning before the United States stepped in.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
Cuba was not doing fine, they did not have a democracy. North and South Korea were not in control of their govt's, it was China/Russia and the United States. Vietnam had an existing rebel gov't successfully winnning back Indochina from it's colonizers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
I understand that countries can change their governments to whatever they wanted. However, if they had not then many of the cold war wars would not have been fought meaning those countries who changed their governments are at fault. Sure we shouldn't intervene and go and attack a country because we don't like their government but it was the governments that changed that caused us to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
jorbaud, the Cold War started during WW II.
I said most of the wars could have been avoided not all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
Exactly, if Vietnam stayed under French control there would have been no Vietnam War, but they changed their government.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
They had a republic (a form of democracy) from 1902 - 1959. Then Castro had his revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
Korea was unavoidable.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
They were changing from the French government to their rebel government. This changed the government causing tension to grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
jorbaud, are you attempting to explain the cause of the Cold War with what the UN/US and Russia/China did during it? My examples were to refute your position that they were the cause of the tension between the West and the East.
I do not believe you understood Brotherhood's question. Everything that you spoke about happened after the Cold War was rolling full steam.
:duh: half reading stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
Ignore my posts.
I can't travel backwards in time.
Yes you can. You just don't know how.
Ah.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
If you read farther in the flat earth thread you will see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusiar
Any chance of a proper answer, jorbaud, or are you just going to spew your nonsensical trolling again?
How you managed to get to post here with your reputation I'll never know.
I believe both the West and East are equally to blame. The US used the atomic bombs on Japan to show we were a strong country (even though Japan was going to surrender). The USSR was "gobbling up" countries and building the iron curtain. The West had NATO and the East had the Warsaw pact. Both sides distrusted the other and had misconceptions which led to the rivalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
I don't troll much.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
Japan was not going to surrender. They dismissed the ultimatum and continued to fight. Just imagine the casualties if the US had to physically invade Japan. We're talking hundreds of thousands of men and machines, and the Japanese would have lost literally millions of people, for everyone was willing to fight for the Emperor and for the nation.
Some historians believe they would have surrendered. We could have carpet bombed them instead of using the atomic bombs or gotten help from our allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
we were already carpet bombing themQuote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
Obviously not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by *jdm*
Carpet bombing was only really useful against cities, not military bases. But I see what you mean.
Japan would probably have fought to the last drop of blood, though.
We could have carpet bombed them until they all died...and we had radar so we could easily go in during the nights and bomb their bases losing a minimal amount of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
Bombing an enemy into submission does not work. The Germans tried and failed (rather epically) and the Allies tried and failed in response.
I was not saying to bomb the enemy into submission, I was saying bomb the enemy until they all died to get rid of the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
You would have bombed a nation into non-existence, Jorbaud? That would have put the West into a really bad light, diplomatically. Which, would probably have tipped the balance and could have maybe caused the East to do the same to us.
Then again, Military history is not a strong suit of mine...
Yes. They killed our people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallbreeze
Yeah probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallbreeze
That would cause WW3 which the East might not want to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallbreeze
Anyway, both sides had blame in the Cold War. I don't think that either side was more 'responsible' for the start of it than the others.
I still contend that the Cold War's existence rests entirely in the hands of the West. While it may have been an intelligent reaction to the actions of the East, the build up and resulting proxy wars were equivocally the result of Western powers fearing what may eventually have resulted from an unchallenged East.
Little is heard in defense of the Soviet Union and their effect on the modern world. I am not asserting they were correct in any of their beliefs nor arguing against that. They were re-emerging onto the international scene as a strong power and competitor to the current global powers who felt it just and prudent to over-prepare themselves for war.
So jorbaud, if you had the choice between ending the war quickly to prevent needless bloodshed on both sides, or bombing the enemy to hell, you'd choose the latter.
If I was in a sufficiently bad mood, then I'd slaughter the lot. But exterminating an entire race of people, and wiping out generations of men, women and children? Really?
Yes. They slaughtered our soldiers in an act of terrorism not war. We should have returned the favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
Yes really. They should not have attacked us. We cut off supplies to them but does that really require them attacking us? I don't think so. They attacked us so we attack them. Thats what should have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
Genociding an entire nation and people, military and civilian alike without discretion, would be worse by far, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
Japan also specifically aimed for military targets, and avoided civilian targets. Any civilian side damages/losses were basically due to either friendly fire or exploding artillery or the like, which was not a desired effect.
Of course, sadly, the US didn't extend the same courtesy. Besides the atomic bombs, if you look at pictures of the aftermath of Tokyo carpet-bombings or the like, you'll see things like charred corpses of a mother and her infant child, along with several other civilians that were killed.
It's sort of amusing, in a sad sort of way, how people feel Japan was unspeakably evil for a sneak attack on a military installation, but the US was justified and noble in their acts of wholesale slaughter of military and civilian populations alike. Think of how the response might have been had Japan and the US reversed their roles in the war; somehow I doubt people would have said Japan would have been justified and right in slaughtering several US civilians in response to a US sneak attack on one of their military bases.
PS: I've suspected you're just trolling since the first post in this thread, but I feel like arguing with you anyway.
Alu I call bull****.... Ever heard of Singapore? Or Nanking? And yes they were military but what about the surrendered soldiers? 8th Div? or even the ambulance men and the doctors? Or Bangka Island?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
The Japanese bombed cities like Singapore and Darwin, they butchered civilians in Nanking, they slaughtered bed ridden wounded in Singapore hospitals, Machine gunned nurses and doctors, and roughly 27% of POWS died while in Japanese hands.... or the Thai-Burma railway were some estimates say 330,000 people worked on the line (including 250,000 Asian labourers and 61,000 Allied POWs) about 90,000 of the labourers and about 16,000 Allied prisoners died.
Plus many more massacres... and don't say but you're ignoring the atrocities of the Allies... at least the allies didn't massacre surrendered populations and POWS wounded or otherwise...
I was referring specifically to Pearl Harbour, actually, which I assume jorbaud was referring to as Japan's act of terrorism against the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
I'm well aware of Japan's activities in the war. However, when speaking specifically of Japan and the US's exchanges with one another, bringing up Japan's attacks on other countries is a red herring. If you ask most Americans why the US bombed Japan, they won't say because the Japanese massacred tons of Chinese people in Nanking, they'll say it's because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. And true enough, the US more or less ignored everything Japan was doing to everyone else until they themselves were attacked.Quote:
The Japanese bombed cities like Singapore and Darwin, they butchered civilians in Nanking, they slaughtered bed ridden wounded in Singapore hospitals, Machine gunned nurses and doctors, and roughly 27% of POWS died while in Japanese hands.... or the Thai-Burma railway were some estimates say 330,000 people worked on the line (including 250,000 Asian labourers and 61,000 Allied POWs) about 90,000 of the labourers and about 16,000 Allied prisoners died.
Plus many more massacres... and don't say but you're ignoring the atrocities of the Allies... at least the allies didn't massacre surrendered populations and POWS wounded or otherwise...
Yes, Japan was, in general, very nasty during the war, there is no question or doubt of that. Was it karmic justice that Japan was bombed after the atrocities they committed to others? Perhaps. Would it have been justice if Japan would have been completely obliterated by the US for no other reason than because of a Japanese sneak attack on a US military base? I don't think so, and that was the argument I was making.
EDIT: I suppose I should add an addendum by saying if by "we", jorbaud means the Allies/Western Powers/whatever as a whole, then my argument is null and void. If, however, by "we" he specifically means the US (which admittedly, as an afterthought, is a rushed assumption on my part), then my argument stands.
You missed what I said Alu.... you stated Japan aimed at military targets and civilian casualties were avoided and were a result of cross fire which is a complete load of BS. I pointed out that, it's not the case and you are avoiding that point.
Nonetheless I should add that the Cold War in My Honest opinion was due to the Soviets. No one else. Most of all Stalin. Had he not have brought down his Iron curtain and allowed people to come and go and trade with other countries there would not have been the distrust between The East and The West... Just My opinion... but hey what would I know...
No you didn't. You pointed out events that had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbour, which, as I clarified in my last post, was the event I was specifically talking about when I said they aimed for military targets and not civilian ones. I was not referring to Singapore, Nanking, Darwin, the Burma Railroad, or anything else, only Pearl Harbour. You did not provide examples that Japanese targeted civilians during their attack on Pearl Harbour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
Someone doesn't know their history very well...Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was timed to occur half an hour after the declaration of war on the United States. They were an honourable race of people, and it was only the delay in the transmission that caused the supposed dishonourable intentions of the Japanese. Therefore, it was not an act of terrorism but instead an act of war on the part on the Japanese.
And you cannot accuse me of national bias, because I'm wholly English. Yes, English, not British.
US declared on Japan on December 8, 1941 and the attack on Pearl Harbor was on December 7,1941. We declared war on them 1 day later not 30 minutes before. Also, we declared on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
They may have planed to attack us after the deceleration but they failed. It was terrorism since we were not in war with them.
Sigh...
The Japanese declaration of war upon the United States was to occur 30 minutes before the attack on Pearl Harbour. The Japanese declared war on the United States, not the other way round.