Reply With QuoteWhat, no votes for "It started because Patton wasn't allowed to roll east to Moscow"?
No really. In the first place the monarchistic nations invaded revolutionary France, because the latter deposed and killed their "brother" - the king of France and destroyed French monarchy altogether. Napoleon was response.Originally Posted by Xaito
What, no votes for "It started because Patton wasn't allowed to roll east to Moscow"?
If USA agreed on Churchil plan to land in Balkans instead of Normandy maybe western armies would be able to free all Eastern European countries before Soviets.
Or maybe you'd be speaking German now.
Wenn du verstehst was ich meine.
Likely hood he wouldn't have been born. On account of majority of Poles if not all of them being exterminated.
Your point is?
"What if..." and "maybe if..." when talking about history are pretty damn unreliable.
Predicting one outcome or another with certainty is impossible here and without considering even the most basic aspects that led to decisions back in the day it's not helpful.
These kinds of statements have for me the same kind of value as a political analysis by drunk people I've heard before. They say something like "George Bush is a damn cowboy" and look at you triumphantly like they expect praise for that deep and meaningful insight.
James said that the west had no political position to kick Soviets out of EE. I just pointed out that there was such posibility but some decisions made that impossible later in time. Conclusion coming from discussion context is that that was a point where Cold War was inevitable.
IMO Cold war was just the continuation of European Big Game (the chessgame played since 1750 maybe even before), it is just that the main players have changed due to 2 european major civil wars (WWI and WWII) leading to preeminence of previously secundary powers
Stalin wanted a protection glaze, he had it (something the Tsars wanted for so long) in order to protect the huge and so exposed Soviet borders
Rooselvet and Roosevelt pals wanted a stable and peaceful western economy without major competitor emerging (much like the UK continental politicy followed since 1750-1800) in order to have an export destination for huge amount of goods produced by US post war industry. He had it
But like during the European Great Game it comes one moment when the 2 main blocks are going on a collision trajectory. If you look back at history that would have led to another war (7 year war, Napoleon war, WWI war were all pretty much as much economicaly as politicaly trigered)
If you ad on the top of that ideological incompatibility yes we should have gone on war
Thanks to nuclear detterence it was not the case (at least not on the main european theatre)
Do you know the definition of a civil war? :P
The definition is exact if you take Europe as a single entity
Moreover that sentence is already used by several historians
Another question ??
it isn't even now - it definitely wasn't before or during the world wars
Actually the definition of a civil war...Bellum Civile applied through-out Roman history is exactly what Europe suffered.
But that off course would mean every one considers Europe as a continuum. Personally I do.
Yet as a respected historian as John Lukacs decsribed WW2 as the last European (civil) war. When you consider the initial belligerents, and the rationales of the war, it certainly fits the bill of a civil war between nations sharing a common history and culture, whose economies were tightly intertwined.
Posting Permissions
