long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
You know you've got LTG on the run when either of these two things happen:
1. "You don't know what the hell you're talking about" makes an appearance multiple times.
2. When he screws up the quote function.
When both happen, you've won.
Are you sure?
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=81http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -announcedWhat about the deflection regarding my credentials or my sources? At what point does that occur in your little hypothesis?
and the point you completely miss is that the Truman Doctrine was a reactionary move to the aggressive moves made by the Soviets in Poland and across Eastern Europe when they violated the agreements made at Yalta.
My argument was never that the Cold War was fought over Poland. My argument has been that the Soviets were the aggressors when they violated agreements made late in the War to allow free and fair elections in Poland. In doing so they were the aggressors of a Cold War which quickly spread to other regions. This literally made Poland the starting point of the Cold War as it was the first theater where the Soviets seized control via puppet government in violation of their agreements.
My initial argument (direct quote from me below as argued in the Milo thread):
"The Cold War was started when the Soviets withdrew a pledge to allow Democratic elections in Poland postwar and turned all of Eastern Europe into either satellite states or annexed them into the Soviet Union."You tried arguing it stated in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine, yet my entire argument is the events of 1946, taken by the Soviets, are what led to the Truman Doctrine. Remember, Churchill's Iron Curtain speech also predates The Truman Doctrine by a year as well and was also in response to the Soviet capture and enslavement of Eastern Europe.
Tell me, if the Soviets don't turn Eastern Europe into a series of satellite states, is there even a Truman Doctrine?
I read the article and it doesn't really make the case that Stalin was the aggressor. It also doesn't provide a correlation between actions in Poland and the beginning of the Cold War. The article more than anything provides a rationale for Stalin's actions. This is consistent with the conclusions drawn by many historians. Stalin was chiefly concerned with controlling his sphere of influence i.e. Eastern Europe. When you look at the scope of U.S. actions just from the start of the Cold War (1947) to 1960 it becomes apparent that the U.S. was far more enterprising than the Soviets were. The renege on Poland was anticipated by Roosevelt anyway and to haggle over it would open the U.S. and Britain up to charges of hypocrisy. It would be difficult to begrudge Stalin Poland with the U.S. exercising control over Central/South America and Britain retaining its colonial status.
The U.S. also didn't feel that strongly about democratic elections anyway. They disregarded them whenever their desired outcome was unable to be achieved. You could state that the renege was an act of aggression but I could counter that by stating that the suspension of lend lease was an act of aggression too. I could also make the case that the dropping of the bomb was an act of aggression also. The bomb was dropped in part to keep the Soviets from invading Japan.
Ultimately I don't think the U.S. felt strongly enough over Poland or the issue to start something as all encompassing as the Cold War.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
