"Winston Churchill's 'bid to nuke Russia' to win Cold War " Topic

"Winston Churchill urged the United States to launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union to win the Cold War, a newly released document reveals.

The previously unseen memorandum from the FBI archives details how Britain's wartime leader made his views known to a visiting American politician in 1947.

Churchill believed a pre-emptive strike on Stalin's Russia might be the only way to stop Communism conquering the West."
link

It seems that our propaganda was right in the end…

I think Churchill and Patton were correct.

I read a staff report of a Warsaw Pact meeting and a NATO meeting of staff officers that ocurred in the mid-sixties. Two separate reports by General Officers of opposite sides. Both came to the conclusion that nuclear weapons should not be used.
Interesting that some military leaders were more stable than the politicians.
Notice that a person from the Age of Victoria would think nothing of dropping nukes.
Thank our stars for sane men in the right place and at the right time.

link

The Cold War is being studied by archeologists…now I'm REALLY old!!

And, for full disclosure, your leadership in Russia planned to nuke China back in 1969, and wanted us to go in on it.

Only US intervention of threatening to nuke the USSR if they attacked China preemptively, stopped the attack, so it's not like your country has the moral high ground on the nuclear war issue.

Oh goodie. I can't wait to see this one show up on "that other site", with them rending their garments in woe about TMP. Should be fun.

@Winston: Can you share some of the highlights when it does?

It will be a lot of self righteous sneering at their favorite TMPers who they hate. Very predictable.

Growing up in the shadow of the very end of the cold war, in a tiny country that is nominally a NATO member but fancies itself neutral, our view of the whole period was that of two mad giants stacking up more and more deadly weapons, and us hoping that they would not decide to push the button over a dispute over which had the larger stack.

We were well aware that if the war came, we'd all die, no matter who was right or wrong.

Winston, it looks like they're too pre-occupied turning on each other.

@Barin1 – I would not be surprised Churchill advocated a pre-emptive strike. This is the same man who expressed the desire to sterilise the working classes in his own nation.

Well, providing that this humane action would destroy my city, my parents and hundreds of thousands of other citizens who's only fault been born in the country I can't agree that Churchill was right…I recall, Mako, you were accusing me of cold war mentality? Oh well….
And of course we have other plans, like this one from 1967…
link

as well as "Pincers" and " Dropshot"…

You say that like it would be a bad thing…

Link goes to the Daily Mail?

Just no. Atrocious rag.

link
if you hate Daily Mail, the original is at The George Washington University ;)

did you HAVE to mention the daily mail? I was quite enjoying the Cold War nostalgia until them

Barin1 – well played sir.

My hometown, Utica NY, was listed as the 14th city likely to be a nuke target due to the tech industries we had during the Cold War. I remember the air raid sirens, fighters, bombers and transports zooming over and the military convoys on the NY State Thruway. It must have been the same for Barin1's family.
Cold War planning dealt with the horrific from all sides. Everyone saw and questioned opportunities. Everyone made contingency plans.
We are fortunate we can game them without breathing fallout.

I am continually working on Space:1959. A campaign with a better Space Race, fewer ICBMs, bigger armies, odd technology, a Second Korean War instead of Viet Nam. My WWIII starts with the Prague Spring. The main premise is that Aliens are manipulating all sides to destroy each other. Just before everyone decides to launch they are found out. Then it's all of us against all of them. Not to make a moral and political statement. Because I want to see Soviet Desant, US Marines, Mongolian Motor Rifle Divisions, a NATO grab bag of units all shooting towards THE OTHER ENEMY.
It's fun trying to write/design this and it would be cool to see.
-from a Cold War Old Fart.

During the cold war everyone talked like demented idiots out to exterminate the world. Luckily, today there are far fewer of them and they have less power.

Of course, us Brits wouldn't have survived a hot war all that well…

I'm not saying I am advocating that Barin, just that I believe both were correct in their analysis that the USSR and communism were a real threat that needed to be dealt with.

Given recent events, both in the USA, and internationally, I stand by their analysis, and my assertions.

I don't want to live in a country where my $30 USD a month government allocated stipend gets cut to $18 USD at the drop of a hat, or eliminated totally after I am "laid off by" by a socialist, or communist controlled regime, like some countries I know.

Communism/socialism has been a failure, as shown by communist regimes now embracing capitalism more effectively than even we do in the West, and beating us at our own game. Sadly, we seem to be doing the opposite.

Luckily, today there are far fewer of them and they have less power.

Someone reminded the world they were a nuclear power quite recently that still has a lot of power.

True that, and a lot of their initial success was due to "state capitalism". The state still regulates, finances and controls very significant chunks of the production, in the contrast to "wild" capitalism,that was implemented in former socialist countries after 1989. Also,a lot of this success was indeed due to less 30 USD/month wages…
BTW, some countries are trying socialism again (Bolivia) and they're not too bad at it – even without outside support.

But returning to the initial topic, I'd say that competing economic systems sound a bit different to the solution like "should be dealt with" by means of nuclear first strike.

Churchill suggested lots of wild and often stupid ideas in WW2. It doesn't surprise me that this continued afterwards. Luckily he was smart enough to listen to the calmer heads about him when they resisted the stupid ones and didn't have them and their families shot or sent to a labour camp for reeducation.

I have always wondered how the U.S. public opinion would have reacted to a succesfull preemptive attack. Maybe they would have aproved it at first, the anticommunist feelings and all, but once they had realized (sorry about my english) that their gov. Had commited genocide… once that they watched the truly effects of a nuclear war, even if they avoided a russian counterattack… how would they have reacted?

As a biological sentient being, I am rather attached to the idea of being alive.
A nuclear war would likely mean I would not be alive.

Not much of a choice there.

As far as economic models, there's no such as thing as true "capitalism" or "communism". Every country in the world uses and has used a mixed model. It's just that the mix happens at different points of the range between the two end points.

True free market capitalism and true communism would be so alien to us that we'd have no words to describe such a society. We'd be like neanderthals in the Boston airport, trying to order coffee with stone talisman.

Two separate reports by General Officers of opposite sides. Both came to the conclusion that nuclear weapons should not be used.
Interesting that some military leaders were more stable than the politicians.

The soldier has to execute the [lawful] orders of the elected civilian leadership. That's the way it is in the US and many other NATO countries. Regardless, the civilain leadership will most likely be safe when hits the fan. And the soldier, many soldiers could die … that is just the way it works … right or wrong …

I have always wondered how the U.S. public opinion would have reacted to a succesfull preemptive attack. Maybe they would have aproved it at first, the anticommunist feelings and all, but once they had realized (sorry about my english) that their gov. Had commited genocide… once that they watched the truly effects of a nuclear war, even if they avoided a russian counterattack… how would they have reacted?

They would be glad to be alive … as both sides were willing to, as you said "commit genocide" to the other. Like an Old West gunfight in the middle of the street. The fastest most accurate shot wins … ghostdog, in a knife fight would you let the other guy kill you because his death may upset his family ?

Please dont take this as a rant against the us. I understand MAD strategy…its just that even during the cold war, there was different alarm status (defcon 3, 2, etc..) based in the perceived enemy intention to attack you. So even in they were enemies, there were a lot of moments during coldwar that each on knew ( or though) that their enemy wasnt preparing a full attack on them that night.
Attacking someone just because he could attack you in the future..well, i think that nobody nowaday would see it as a legal casus belli.
I wonder about the us opinion because the US is a democracy, and their public opinion is important.
I wouldnt compare it to a knife fight.. i would compare it to burning your neigbourgh's car because you are sure that he will do the same thing to you after a verbal fight.

I think that a preemptive attack without a crisis, just because nowaday you have an advantage that you are sure you will loose in a few years, would be inmoral, just as pearl harbour, but with million of deads instead of several thousands

I'm pretty sure that with proper media involvement in a year or two the people will be fed a plausible explanation why did it happen, and why there was no other option. In USSR it could be the same, so let's just say that the governments will always come with a right tale, and as being alive is much better than being annihilated, public opinion will fall for the explanation sooner or later.

People are usually pretty good at rationalizing away why "other people" had to die.