[lit-ideas] Re: Who won, or lost, the Cold War

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:38:10 -0800

The Republican argument, which gives Reagan the credit for winning the Cold
War, assumes the corruption and inefficiency that Andreas mentioned, but
argued that the USSR would nevertheless have gone on indefinitely without US
pressure and the Reagan pressure that was the straw that broke the USSR,
according to the Republican argument, was Star Wars.  Reagan said he was
going ahead with Star Wars, the USSR not only believed him but believed Star
Wars would work and therefore collapsed.

 

I don't subscribe to the Republican theory whole-heartedly because I have
been a fan of George Kennan who introduced the strategy of containment
during the (Democratic) Truman Administration.  The pressure applied by
Reagan may have been the "final straw," but it was all those other straws
applied during previous administration that brought matters to that point.

 

I suppose it is theoretically possible, as someone indicated, that something
utterly unrelated to the Cold War and unrelated to anything the US did in
it, like the aforementioned interference from Mars, but absent that I think
the best argument is that the US as a result of a policy that began with
Truman and ended with Reagan did win the Cold War.

 

That USSR corruption and inefficiency was a factor is beyond dispute, but
consider the "war" the French fought against the Germans at the beginning of
WWII. I haven't heard of any corruption but the French Generals and other
leaders who prepared for and fought the Germans were inefficient,
unimaginative, and utterly unsuitable for fighting the Germans.  We know
this from the many histories written about these matters.  Charles De Gaul
himself wrote about it.  He knew what should have been done (according to
him) but the blind bureaucrats at the top wouldn't listen to him.

 

So, assuming that De Gaul and others I've read were correct, did the Germans
defeat the French or did their ineptitude cause their defeat?  Surely it was
a combination of the two, but this is true in any war.  Two forces war.
After the war is over we look at why one side won and the other lost.  There
is always some deficiency on the part of the side that lost, but there is no
good reason for arguing that these deficiencies were utterly decisive.  The
side that won did fight and they did win.

 

Consider another example.  Sonny Liston is the most feared heavyweight in
existence and he is to fight the young upstart Cassius Clay.  The fight
takes place and with a punch that has many spectators crying "fix," Clay
knocks out Liston. It was later learned that Liston was heavily involved
with gangsters and would have been susceptible to gangster pressure; so he
may have thrown the fight.  Assuming that he did, did this mean that Clay
didn't win?  Had not Clay entered the ring with Liston he might have
remained heavyweight champion for quite a long time.  Clay walked away with
the heavyweight title, changed his name to Muhammad Ali, and became one of
the most successful and powerful heavyweights in history.  So he at least
technically and officially won.  We can say that about the US as well.  We
technically and officially won.  

 

But Clay, boxing fans would argue, would have defeated Liston even if Liston
fought his hardest.  We can say the same thing about the US.  Army against
army we would have defeated the USSR - assuming a neutral battlefield like
Western Europe or Afghanistan.  I'm not forgetting Clauswitz' dictum,
something along the lines of "the first rule of warfare is 'never invade
Russia.'"

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:02 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Who won, or lost, the Cold War

 

My goodness me. I had a simple response to Lawrence Helm's post but must now

address this more complicated one too. Shucks.

 

 

--- Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

> --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 

> > Theorists from the Democratic Party argue that the

> > policy developed during

> > the Truman administration won the Cold War. 

> > Republican theorists argue that

> > Reagan's resolve won the Cold War.  To say that we

> > didn't win the Cold War

> > but instead the USSR simply collapsed would (check

> > me if I'm wrong oh Logic

> > Police) imply that it wasn't a War after all.

 

Simple answer: no, it would not imply there was no war - for it is possible

that there is a war and yet that one nation involved collapses for reasons

unconnected with that war (plague; an invasion from mars; poor

infrastructure).

 

And of course it was a _cold_ war. I emphasise this because I once heard a

lawyer (now a Q.C.) say there was no Cold War. This was intriguing. I
thought

maybe his theory was that (a la '1984') the American and Soviet

administrations were conniving together in a phoney war of rhetoric so that

they could better control their own people and minimise dissent against
them.

In fact, the lawyer's argument, which he maintained for about an hour before

the other participants retired shattered and bored, was simply this - there

was no Cold War because it wasn't a war, stupid. To which the answer is -

that's why they call it a _cold_ war, stoopider. Larry Kramer once aptly

remarked that a special circle in hell should be earmarked for such people..

 

But I digress: the central question is surely whether the Soviet system

collapsed because of its own inherent weaknesses or because of American

policy, or some combination? Whatever the answer we can surely still

maintain, without contradiction, that there was a Cold War. 

 

 

> If ~C(x) XOR ~C(y) -> ~W(x,y)

> "If x doesn't collapse, and y doesn't collapse, then

> there was no war between x and y."

 

This isn't really the question; which is - if x or y does collapse, for

reasons unrelated to a war, does that mean there was no war? I suggest "not

necessarily" in the case of either a conventional 'hot' or an entirely
'cold'

war.   

 

> Let x be Iran, y be Iraq, and W be Iran-Iraq war,

> then:

> Iran did not collapse, Iraq did not collapse,

> therefore there was no Iran-Iraq war.

 

Not the question.

 

> It should be noted that in the field of logic of war

> and peace, the controversial Liverpool school

> maintains that we can grasp the sufficent conditions

> of war with little mental effort. 

 

Does this mean _a_ little mental effort or _very_ little mental effort?

 

>Now given that while

> Soviet union was atheistic, no heaven, and finally

> ceased to exist as a country, still its citizens

> certainly seemed willing to die for it, which means

> that Lawrence was right after all. 

 

Lost as an eskimo in a jungle with this.

 

>Contra

> Liverpoolians, it has been argued that "easy if you

> try" is a contradiction in terms.

 

They are often called 'Liverpudlians' when not called 'thievin' scousers',

but - that aside - the point here escapes me.

 

For the record, it would seem Andreas is right that Soviet collapse had much

to do with corruption and fiscal mismanagment. That said, it might also be

the case that the arms race forced their hand, so that the Soviets realised

they could not 'win' or sustain themselves militarily. Instead, they

eventually saw that the only way forward was to allow the country to be
taken

over by gangsters.

 

Donal

London

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2006