I’d say it alters whether or not we take your claim that the cold war “started in the 1920s with the establishment of the union and its clear goals of expansionism” seriously.
Which started with Hegel.
Which started with Rousseau.
Which started with…
Just blame it on Eve.
What expansionism did the Soviet Union engage in from 1917-39? If anything it was the victim of expansionism, from the Allied intervention in the Civil War to Poland’s attempt to push thier border as far east as possible in the Polish-Soviet War.
You were the one who set Korea as a starting point.
From my perspective, the Cold War is the face-off between the U.S., U.K. and allies against the U.S.S.R. The Chinese were backed by the Soviets on the Korean peninsula, but they were never a threat to the U.S. and we were never faced with a hot war with China without Korea, regardless of their internal battles.
If you follow the notions of folks like the_diego, then the Cold War was the struggle against World Wide Communism, but I figure that, as a unified movement, that died with the expulsion of Trotsky from the Soviet ruling council. Actions in Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and elsewhere, while portrayed as part of the Cold War by those who wished to perceive “communism” as a unified threat, actually tended to be local struggles for either independence, power, or both that were only a part of the Cold War as each side acted on the principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend (or puppet).”
In that light, the Cold War was what became NATO and what became the Warsaw Pact with most Asian actions as supported by those powers merely power plays by the antagonists to which they were actually late players, coming in to offer support to groups that they did not actually inspire or control.
To Nemo and Diss, you can start with the USSR’s bone with France on how to treat Eastern European territories right after WW1. USSR wanted them to fall under its control. The Soviets also sent arms during the Spanish CW.
The “real” cold as many here define it is immediately post WW2 with silent opposition to the Marshall Plan (which was really there to counter Soviet expansion in post-war Europe,) military access to the Mediterranean area, etc.
I don’t often say this, but cite?
In 1936. Once again, what’s your evidence that the Soviet Union was expansionist in the 1920’s?
Here, I’ll even give you a hint. Do a search of Comintern.
No, I said that Asia was the starting point,to the extent that anywhere can be said to be the starting point. I then pointed to the Korean War as the earliest incident in the Cold War that most people are familiar with.
And I stand by that. To the extent that the Cold War can be said to have started anywhere, Asia is as good as anywhere else.
A position which I have never seen a single academic subscribe to, and one which I doubt you can find any expert support for.
Your Third International, as well as my own Franco-Soviet disagreement (easily wiki’ed) already proves my point.
Move on. Ignoring events before WW2 is foolish.
See? You just needed somebody to point you in the right direction.
Now I’ll point out that the main doctrinal dispute between Trotsky and Stalin arose over this very issue. Trotsky was an proponent of world revolution and Stalin was against it. Stalin’s argument was that communism would best be served not by trying to spread revolution to other countries but by defending it and perfecting it in the Soviet Union. Stalin, of course, won the argument (axe beats paper) and “socialism in one country” became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.
I’ll have to second a request for a cite on this. What became the USSR was in the throes of a Civil War which France, along with many other nations was siding with their enemies against them. Japan didn’t leave Siberia until 1922, and there was that little war that Poland started that I mentioned earlier, the basis of which was Polish expansionism at the USSR’s expense. If it’s so easily wiki’d, please link it. The only thing I’m finding is thing like “Franco–Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance.”
In what possible way is this expansionist? They were aiding one side in the Spanish Civil War, they weren’t going to annex Spain or make it a puppet state if they won. By this definition the USA was being expansionist by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Wrong on all counts. The fear that the Marshall Plan was put into to place to prevent was the spread of communism among the now bombed out poor nations of Europe on the basis that poverty is a breeding ground for communism, not expansionism from the USSR. It’s not a subtle difference. The USSR was unfairly but unsurprisingly unwilling to give up its control of buffer states in Eastern Europe that it had occupied during the war. Stalin may have been paranoid, but people really were out to get him. What exactly is “silent opposition” anyway? The USSR had no designs on gaining military access to the Mediterranean area; to truly get that they would need to invade Turkey to gain control of the Bosporus. The only other Mediterranean country, Greece, they had agreed to keep out of when Churchill and Stalin famously divided the Balkans into respective spheres of influence in the Percentages Agreement. I’ll even cite wiki for you on the Greek Civil War:
There’s also the point that the Soviets were opposing the Nazis in the Spanish Civil War. If that was part of the Cold War, it implies we were on the same side as Hitler.
Well, just to avoid more confusion, a “war” has to have a reference party, in the case of the 20th century cold war, it’s the Soviet Union. It’s not surprising that at one time Nazi Germany was “siding” with the Allies. Just take away the confusion world war 2 brought to the picture.
Perhaps, in order to not further derail this thread, we should start a new one on this topic. Would you be interested in such a thread?