Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashtonkem | Hacker News Reader

Its interesting the level of paranoia Americans felt about the USSR. That the idea of a USSR invasion ever entered the public imagination is genuinely laughable, any such invasion would stand no chance and benefit the USSR not one bit. A ground invasion of the USSR was more plausible (but still not plausible) given that the US at least could have used Western Europe as a launching pad. Duking it out in the Fulda gap would be dumb and unlikely, but it’s orders of magnitude more likely than the USSR deciding to take on the pacific fleet in the hopes of landing ground troops on a Californian beach.

With some retrospect I think that on the whole the USSR had more to fear from aggressive US policy more than the US had to fear from aggressive USSR policy. And both were right to fear accidents and miscommunication leading to disaster, which is certainly the most likely cause of conflict between the two.

View on HN

> Its interesting the level of paranoia Americans felt about the USSR

Entire financing of military-industrial sector relied on this myth.

It was intentionally manufactured and promoted.

When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.

But now terrorist narrative petered out and USA is in trouble again. China is obvious next narrative target. However China is actually dangerous economically and in military way. USA doesn't want to pick a narrative enemy it will eventually actually loose to irl.

I think recent actions of Putin create a great opportunity for doing business as usual.

> When USSR collapsed, top people in USA were shocked, dissapointed and unsure of the future. Fortunately terrorists popped up, so militay industrial complex got new easy lease on life by spinng them into existential threat pretty much the same way it did with USSR before.

Can you back that up with anything? The arms manufacturers were not fans of the War on Terror because it didn't require expensive weapons, and those expensive weapons programs were cut right and left and the defense budget was put on a diet.

Sure. Terrorists weren't as good of a threat as USSR.

But you do with what you have. Business adapts. USA dumped a lot of equipment in various countries over last two decades under the guises of figting terrorists, to make room for purchase of new equipment.

Be glad. Alternative is dumping MRAPs on local police forces in small USA towns.

If you are interested in similar perspectives "Power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis is an interesting watch.

The Soviet Union invaded and took control of many of their neighbors, including most of Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia (including invading Afghanistan in 1979), as well as creating and supporting regimes elsewhere (Cuba, etc.). When the people of some countries (e.g., Hungary, Czechoslovakia) tried to form democracies, the Soviets sent in tanks. They tried to sieze Berlin early on. It's not at all far-fetched that they would try to expand further into Europe.

(Pardon the redundancy.)

Europe, sure. But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect. It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.

But fears of a Red Dawn scenario were always delusional. And that’s my point.

> It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.

It's not like that at all. The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.

> Europe, sure.

And Central Asia, and many others.

> But america only really cared about that because of domino theory and it’s own empire to protect.

That's just an empty claim. How about some facts?

> The US relationship with South American countries was nothing like the Iron Curtain.

They did prop up or support right wing dictators that murdered our population and sometimes even waged futile war against other NATO allies (whooops!). On one thing we agree: the US didn't dirty their hands directly, they trained murderers in things like the School of the Americas and then sent them to do their dirty work.

> It’s not like america didn’t do the exact same thing in South America, but on the other side of the political spectrum.

What did America do in South America that you think is "the exact same thing" as the USSR's establishment — and four decades of control — of puppet communist governments across central and eastern Europe?

Just one data point, the democratically elected government of Guatemala was overthrown with support by the CIA and a military dictatorship installed that killed about 150 000 people through disappearances etc.. Read up on the Guatemalan civil war.

The history of every Latin American country reads very similar, ironically with the exceptions being the strongly soviet aligned countries.

"The exact same thing" is hyperbole of course, but the US was playing the "great game" of the Cold War just as well as the Soviets. Where the Soviets many times directly interfered by sending troops (while the US was less direct, with the exceptions of Korea, Vietnam, etc), the US preferred undermining existing regimes they didn't like in South America -- their "backyard" -- and propping up right-wing dictators trained in the School of the Americas (Chile, Argentina, etc).

The Soviets were way less subtle and way more direct, but I believe there are geographical reasons for this.

Personally I think that the difference between a CIA backed coup and direct military invasion is a distinction without a difference if you live in the country. Either way you have a stronger foreign power stripping you of your local political autonomy and threatening your physical safety.

A ground invasion of the USSR wasn’t just plausible, a bunch of Allied troops left over from WWI were landed at Arkhangelsk to actively fight the Bolsheviks in cooperation with White Russian forces. [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_intervention

Participating in a multilateral civil war is much easier than actually invading a unified country, because you have friendly forces to get you in past the frontier and help your supply lines out. Generally speaking invading armies haven’t had a great time in Russia when there wasn’t a civil war on. America on the other hand is an absolute nightmare to consider invading, given geography and the power of our navy.

The Bolsheviks were absolutely correct to be paranoid about the west’s intent towards them. But that doesn’t mean that American tanks rolling east through the Fulda gap was that likely either. Too bloody, and too likely to fail.

Agreed. In the end, for whatever reasons, both Blocs were paranoid of something that was unlikely to happen (invasion way less likely than accidental nuclear war) because the costs and consequences of defeat (or even winning!) were way too terrible for either of them.

The Cold War with their proxy conflicts and puppet governments was a whole different deal though.

Hardly an attempt to sieze Russia.

Maybe not an attempt at annexation, but Winston Churchill made speeches late in life bemoaning the effort’s failure to ‘strangle bolshevism in its cradle.’

Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.

> Tell me where things would have stopped if the Whites, Allies, and Czechoslovak Legion had gained the upper hand.

In no way would it involve the UK or US controlling any part of Russia.

Also, the Whites were Russian. The Bolsheviks had no claim on representing Russia any more than the Whites did.

Given that UK's habits at the time I'm pretty certain we'd have found some excuse to hold onto a chunk of Russia in those circumstances.

The Bolsheviks were completely correct in being paranoid about western attitudes and intentions towards them. But that’s a far cry from “the UK is going to seize Moscow”

Whites would have reestablished empire and put whatever Romanov bolsheviks did not murder on the throne? Stalin would be dead.. Beria, Ezhov and co too. :)

It would be an amazing thing if bolsheviks could be strangled in the cradle. I think only Poles had a chance if they waged their offensive through Ukraine better, western powers had no real say in any of it after the ww1 bloodletting nobody was going to go invade Russia.

Yeah, Russians just want to return Russian Alaska, which is not a part of the USA.

The USSR wanted Alaska back in the exact same way that I want to be the CEO of Apple. There was no world in which the USSR tried to take Alaska by force.

Yeah, but People Republic of Alaska may join RF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com