"Five myths about the Cold War" Topic

"More than 20 years since the U.S.S.R. disappeared, Russia's incursion into Ukraine is renewing old rivalries and sparking talk of a new Cold War, with former KGB officer Vladi­mir Putin serving as the West's latest foil in Moscow. But how apt is the comparison? Let's examine some myths that endure about the East-West stalemate.

1. During the Cold War, we knew who the enemy was.

Throughout the Cold War, fierce disagreements often arose about the nature of the threat. Debate raged in the late 1940s and 1950s about the danger posed by American communists and others with suspect loyalties. After President Harry Truman sent U.S. forces to the Korean Peninsula in 1950, some in Congress warned that getting bogged down in Asia would divert forces from the real threat Joseph Stalin posed to Europe. Protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s once again raised the question of the enemy: Was it China, the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese communists? Similar questions emerged in the 1980s in debates about aid to anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua.

America's main target changed with the times. Mao Zedong's China was once seen as a great danger, but after China and the Soviet Union clashed in 1969, the U.S. government pursued a far-reaching rapprochement with Beijing . The United States also established a detente with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, as did allies in Europe. When U.S.-Soviet tensions resurfaced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western Europeans preserved their own detente with the Soviet bloc…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good post

Agreed, a very interesting article.

I'm glad he brought up the "Long Peace." That's the first myth that came to my mind.

I think any country's definition of "enemy" changes over time. Geopolitical goals are not usually static, (some may last decades but seldom do they last over 100s of years – exceptions do exist,) and change as nations evolve and others evolve in response.

BTW, interesting article (and the one comment is true) but there is really no way to respond specifically about what is questionable in the article without approaching politics because it was a political policy.

Happy you enjoyed the article boys! (smile).
Agree that's very good.

Amicalement
Armand

I'd disagree. More spurious claims and contentious points than little basis than 'myths'.