Chapter 46 Chapter 8 The Cold War Era 2

2 So for 40 years, the two camps continued to increase their armaments to compete with each other.However, this situation of long-term armed confrontation is based on an unrealistic assumption that has no factual basis at all: that is, the world situation is extremely unstable, and a world war may break out at any time. Only by keeping each other in check can a world war be prevented.Where does this psychological phenomenon come from?First of all, the theory of the Cold War is purely a Western point of view. It is ridiculous to look back now, but it was a natural reaction to the aftershocks of World War II.At that time, everyone believed that the period of human disaster was not over yet, and the future of world capitalism and free society was still uncertain.Most observers believe that, based on the lessons learned after the First World War, there must be a serious economic crisis after the war, and even the United States will not be spared.An economist who would later win a Nobel Prize made this prediction in 1943, warning that the United States would “encounter an economic downturn of unprecedented mass unemployment and industrial disorder” (Samuelson, 1943, p. 51).Before the victory of the war, the Washington authorities had no time to give full attention to economic affairs.But with regard to postwar national policy, the US government spent more effort in avoiding another Great Depression than in preventing another war (Kolko, 1969, pp. 244-246).

The reason why Washington was worried that "great chaos will break out after the war" and shake "the social, political, and economic stability of the world" (Dean Acheson, cited in Kolko, 1969, p. 485) is not unfounded.Because at that time, all the warring countries, except the United States, were in ruins after the war.Moreover, in the eyes of the Americans, the people of various countries are suffering from hunger and cold, and they are likely to take risks and embrace the embrace of social revolution ideas, and embark on the opposite path to the international free economic system that advocates free enterprise, free trade, and free investment.However, the future of the United States and the whole world can only be effective under the international economic system that implements the spirit of freedom.What's more, the pre-war international society has completely disintegrated at this time. On the vast European continent and a larger piece of land outside Europe, only the United States is left alone to face the increasingly powerful Soviet Union.The future of the global political situation is uncertain, but the only thing that is certain is that in this chaotic world that may explode at any time, if anything happens, capitalism and the United States will only become weaker, while the power that started with revolution will be even weaker. There is a lot of noise.

As for the newly liberated countries, the situation has not been much better for the moderate politicians in the middle of the country when the fighting has just stopped.Regardless of whether they are in the government or in the opposition, these people are troubled by the growth of the Communists, and they can only ask for a little support from the Western allies.But the communists have risen from the flames of war with greater momentum than ever before, sometimes even leaping to become the largest party in the country with the largest number of voters.The French Prime Minister (Socialist Party) went to Washington to warn that without financial aid, he would most likely be defeated by the Communist Party. In 1946, the poor harvests in Europe, followed by a severe winter, made the European and American political circles on both sides of the ocean sympathetic.

No matter how congenial partners are, once the war is over, they will often part ways.It’s even more surprising that the United States, the leading capitalist country, and the Soviet Union, which seemed to be the boss within its own sphere of influence, were originally only a temporary union. Faced with various post-war situations, the two parties had to break up.But even so, it cannot fully explain the reason why the U.S. policy is so strongly anti-communist—but apart from the United Kingdom, other allies and wings of the U.S. are not so enthusiastic about anti-communism—the U.S. policy, at least in its public statements , mainly for the worst-case scenario that Moscow will launch a global conquest.The United States believes that Soviet Russia has evil intentions and intends to direct an atheist "communist world conspiracy" operation, ready to overthrow the free country at any time.But at the time of the 1960 US presidential election, what British Prime Minister Macmillan called "our modern free society—the new form of capitalism" (Home, 1989, vol. Never faced any imaginable crisis.It is even more puzzling to view J.F. Kennedy's campaign speeches in this light.

Why do some people regard the outlook of the "US State Department experts" on the situation as an "apocalyptic insight" (Hughes, 1969, p. 28)?Why is it that the calm British diplomats in the Soviet Union, while refusing to make any comparisons between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, also pointed out in the report that the world "is facing what can be called a modern version of the crisis of religion in the 16th century. In this modern religious war, Soviet communism is fighting against Western social democracies and an American version of capitalism for world supremacy" (Jensen, 1991, pp. 41, 53-54, Roberts, 1991)?In retrospect—and indeed quite likely—it is clear that the Soviet Union had no intention of expanding in 1945-1947, nor did it intend to expand the turf it had set for the Communist bloc at the 1943-1945 summit.In fact, in the countries controlled by Moscow and the communist movement, various regimes often deliberately "do not" follow the Soviet model to establish a country, but instead implement a mixed economic system under the multi-party parliamentary democracy.This approach is not only very different from the "dictatorship of the proletariat", but "more tends" to the fact of a one-party dictatorship.In the internal documents of the Communist Party, the dictatorship of the proletariat is even called "a useless and meaningless move" (Spriano, 1983, p. 265). (In fact, the only communist party that refused to follow this new line was a revolutionary regime such as Yugoslavia that had escaped Moscow's control and that Stalin desperately wanted to bring down.) What's more, although the Soviet troops were its greatest military asset, However, the demobilization speed of the Soviet Union was no less than that of the United States. The number of the Red Army dropped from 12 million at its peak in 1945 to 3 million in 1948.This is largely overlooked (New York Times, October 24, 1946; October 24, 1948).

Therefore, on any rational level, the Soviet Union at that time actually had no immediate threat to anyone outside the territory occupied by the Red Army.At that time, the exhausted Soviet Union was trying to recover from the ashes of the war. Its normal economy was in decline, and the government's credibility was completely discredited except in Great Russia, and it completely lost its centripetal force.As for the western border area, it has been at odds with Ukraine and various other nationalist guerrilla forces for many years.It was dominated by Stalin, who was risk-averse externally and ruthless internally (see Chapter 13).The Soviet Union was hungry for foreign aid; so it was not profitable to offend the United States, the only superpower capable of lending a helping hand, for a short period of time.As a communist, Stalin certainly believed that communism would eventually replace capitalism, which is beyond doubt; proceeding from this belief, any form of coexistence between the two systems would be difficult for long.But at the end of World War II, Stalin's planners did not think that capitalism was in crisis.They apparently believed that capitalism had a long way to go, backed by American hegemony, because the increase in American wealth and power was so obvious at the time (Loth 1988, pp 36-37).This is actually the crux of the Soviet Union's worries.The stance adopted by the Soviet side after the war was not so much an ambitious offensive as a defensive one seeking self-preservation.

In short, although the Soviet Union was overwhelmed, the situation dictated that both sides had to adopt a confrontational policy.On the one hand was the Soviet Union, fully aware of its precarious position; on the other was the world superpower, the United States, equally uneasy about the rapidly changing situation in Central and Western Europe, and the uncertain political situation in most of Asia.Even if no ideology is involved, a confrontation may be inevitable. In early 1946, American diplomat George Kennan first proposed the "containment policy" (containment) that was actively adopted by the Washington authorities.Kennan himself did not believe that Russia was really fighting for the communist jihad, and he himself was not a crusader in any war of consciousness - as can be seen in his later career (the only exception is his commitment to democracy. Political evaluation is very low, so it is strongly opposed).Kennan was really nothing more than an expert on Russia from the old school of power politics-there are many such figures among American personnel stationed in Europe-in ​​the eyes of such people, the Russian Tsarists, or Bolsheviks, They all belonged to a backward and barbaric society.The Russians have always had a "traditional insecurity" instinct, and their rulers are a group of idiots full of xenophobic psychology.This country, always cut off from the outside world, always ruled by a dictator, always deliberately engaged in a death struggle, patiently waiting for the complete destruction of the opponent.Neither cooperate nor make concessions, judge and act, never resort to reason, can only rely on force, and solve problems head-on.In Kennan's eyes, communism undoubtedly added fuel to the flames and greatly increased the danger of the old Russian empire, because it flaunted the world's most ruthless Utopian ideology-that is, the ideology of monopolizing the world-as the world's most murderous The power is added to the wings.Therefore, according to Kennan's theory, it means that the only powerful country that can compete with Russia-the United States-absolutely cannot compromise.Regardless of whether Russia believes in communism or not, it must be "contained" to prevent its poison from penetrating.

This is the view of the US side.On the contrary, from Moscow's point of view, the only way to preserve and then use its newly established but vulnerable international power is exactly the same as the US's approach: no compromise.No one knows how weak the hand he is playing is actually better than Stalin himself. From 1943 to 1945, when the Soviet Union was still an indispensable force against Hitler—it was even regarded as the main force to defeat Japan—Roosevelt and Churchill made a promise at several summits, especially the Yalta Conference. Promise, promised many benefits to the Soviet Union.In the eyes of the Soviet Union, Stalin firmly insisted on areas that had been negotiated through previous meetings, such as the border between Iran and Turkey agreed between 1945 and 1946.Except for these fortified areas, the Soviet Union may consider withdrawing, but if they try to reopen Yalta, there is no door.In fact, during that time, Stalin's foreign minister, Molotov, was famously uttering the word "no" at international conferences, large and small.At that time, the United States already had nuclear weapons, although it was just beginning.Until December 1947, although 12 atomic bombs were produced, there were no planes to transport them, and no qualified assemblers in the army (Moisi, 1981, pp. 78-79).As for the Soviet Union, it is still empty-handed.Unless the Soviet side makes concessions first, the United States will never give any economic assistance.This, however, hits the nail on the head for Moscow, which cannot show weakness even for the most urgently needed economic aid.As for the United States, it did not intend to give any benefits to the Soviet Union.Before the Yalta Conference, the Soviet Union had asked the United States for a postwar loan, but the United States claimed that the document had been "misplaced" and could no longer be found.

To put it simply, while the United States is worried about the possibility of the Soviet Union's world hegemony in the future, Moscow is troubled by the fact that the United States is showing its prestige in all areas of the world except the Red Army-occupied areas.At that time, the United States, whose national power was far stronger than all the countries combined, could easily bring the exhausted Soviet Union under its command.Faced with this situation, sticking to the end without compromise is naturally the most logical response.Let's call it Moscow's paper tiger trick. Having said that, even if the two powers are not at odds with each other and are unwilling to compromise for a long time, it does not mean that the danger of war is imminent.Even in the 19th century, although British diplomats also believed that the only way to prevent imperial Russia from expanding outward was the Kennan-style "containment" method; The danger of war is even slimmer.Mutual non-compromise does not mean a life-and-death political struggle, or a religious Armageddon.However, there are two factors that make the confrontation between the two sides change from a rational level to an emotional level.Like the Soviet Union, the United States is also a big country in the world that represents an ideology, and most Americans deeply believe that this form is a model that the whole world should follow.Unlike the Soviet Union, the United States is a democracy—unfortunately, this democratic feature of the United States is even more dangerous for the situation in the world.

The reason is as follows.Although the Soviet government also has to work hard to discredit its rival in the international arena—the United States, it doesn’t have to bother to win the support of its own Congress, and it doesn’t care whether its party can win the Congress and the presidential election. vote.But the U.S. government in a democratic country is not.So American politicians big and small, whether they really believed their own eloquent anti-Communist rhetoric or, like President Truman's Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal (James Forrestal, 1882-1949), were insane, thought that the Russians were coming from his hospital. Climbed through the window and committed suicide; everyone found that the exaggerated tone of the anti-Communist prophecy not only sounded righteous, but also had infinite magical effects, and it was hard to refuse to use it.For the U.S. government, which correctly recognizes that it has risen to a world-class hegemony, domestic "isolationism" or so-called defensive claims on national defense are still very strong.Therefore, if there is a strong enemy outside, it will provide a tool to break this isolated mentality, and it will be more handy to act.Because if even its own security is threatened, the United States will naturally have no hesitation, and it will no longer be able to stand alone like it did after the First World War.To put it more bluntly, only under the fear of collective hysteria can the US president justifiably levy massive taxes on the American people, who have always been known for their resistance to taxes, in order to promote their foreign policies.In this country founded on "individualism" and "private enterprise", in this country where even the definition of "country" itself is defined by the bipolar consciousness that is opposed to "communism" - the so-called "American spirit" "(Americanism) - Anti-communism is naturally welcomed and believed by the people (we cannot ignore the significance of the votes of immigrants from Soviet Eastern European countries).In fact, the despicable white terrorist persecution movement and the irrational anti-red wind that occurred in the United States back then were not initiated by the US government, but by a small group of insignificant agitators.This group of people found that a large number of denunciations of internal enemies can obtain great political benefits in the officialdom - such as the notorious Senator McCarthy (Joseph McCarthy), who is not even particularly anti-communist - the benefits of which, the United States Hoover (J. Edgar Hoover, 1895-1972), the director of the FBI, was well versed in the samadhi.That is to say, in the name of anti-communism, long-term protection of personal precious realities.One of those who single-handedly established the Cold War model even dubbed the threat of Communist power "the attack of the Primitive" (Acheson, 1970, n. 462).Under the incitement of such emotions, the policies of the Washington authorities had to be accelerated to extremes, especially in the period after the victory of the Chinese Communist Party.As for the crime of causing discoloration in mainland China, it is natural to blame Moscow.

At the same time, American politicians who are extremely allergic to votes, based on the needs of political schizophrenia, strongly advocated that the U.S. government and its allies implement a method that can not only beat back the frenzy of "communist ambitions", but also be the most economical and beneficial to the American people. Live-disturbance minimum wish-fulfillment policy.This set of policies not only refers to a nuclear strategy that wins with "cannonballs" rather than "personnel", but also includes a comprehensive strategy of "massive retaliation" proposed in 1954.That is to say, once the enemy invades, even if the opponent uses traditional weapons for small-scale attacks, we must retaliate with nuclear weapons.To put it simply, the U.S. government finds itself immobilized and confined to an aggressive position under the restraint of multiple politicians. At best, it can only find a little room for flexibility in tactics. So the two sides entered into a frenzied arms race, and the ultimate goal was obviously only to die together.All courses of action are based on the opinions of the only group of so-called child generals or nuclear experts.And the first condition of doing this is to ignore the irrationality of insanity.Outgoing US President Eisenhower, an old-fashioned military moderate, now sees himself in an era that is descending into chaos.However, Eisenhower himself was not overwhelmed by this phenomenon, calling it a "military-industrial complex".Both the enemy and the enemy are involved in what Eisenhower called the frenzy, that is, a large gathering of manpower and material resources, day and night, to prepare for war for a living.During this period, countries invested more in the defense industry than in any previous peacetime.At the same time, the governments of various countries naturally also encourage their military industries to use their excess production capacity to attract foreign customers and arm their comrades-in-arms.More importantly, it strives for lucrative export markets while keeping the most advanced armaments and nuclear weapons for its own use.So in practice, the superpower basically still has a monopoly on nuclear weapons. In 1952, the British developed their own nuclear technology. Paradoxically, it also achieved another goal of the United Kingdom: that is, to reduce the degree of dependence on the United States.Next, China and France also entered the list of nuclear powers in the 1960s (France's nuclear weapons were completed independently and had nothing to do with the United States).But at the end of the Cold War, the nuclear development of these countries was insignificant to the overall situation.By the 1970s and 1980s, many other countries had also mastered the technology to build nuclear weapons, most notably Israel and South Africa (India could also be counted).But until the end of the bipolar world order in 1989, the proliferation of nuclear weapons did not raise any serious international problems. So, who should be responsible for the situation of the Cold War?This kind of debate is like an ideological tennis match in which you come and go, and the winner is always close. One side blames the Soviet Union for all the faults, and the other side blames the blame on the United States. Interesting, but most of those who hold this view are dissidents in the United States).Since we can't find a conclusion, we inevitably want to be a peacemaker to mediate, thinking that everything is caused by a misunderstanding between the two parties with mutual suspicion and fear.As a result of stalemate, the more afraid they became, the more they resisted, and finally evolved into "two armed camps holding high different banners and mobilizing all their strength for confrontation." (Walker, 1993, p. 55) This statement is completely correct, but it is not exhaustive. The whole truth.It can explain the phenomenon of "freezing" (congealing) on ​​the front lines of both sides from 1947 to 1949; it can also explain the gradual division of German territory from 1949 to 1961 when the Berlin Wall was built.This theory can also explain why the anti-communist forces of Western countries have to form a military alliance, and only the United States is following the lead (among them, only French General Charles de Gaulle dared to ignore the instructions of the United States); The Eastern European countries on the other side of the watershed also cannot escape the fate of full surrender to the Soviet Union (among them, only Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia can ignore Moscow's orders).However, this set of rhetoric cannot explain the tone of apocalypse in the Cold War that meant doing justice for the heavens.This "destiny" call comes from the United States.However, the governments of Western European countries, regardless of the size of the Communist Party in their countries, were all obedient, anti-communist wholeheartedly, and vowed to resist the possible invasion of the Soviet Union.Given the choice between the United States and the Soviet Union, neither country hesitated for a moment; not even those who had traditionally, policy, or negotiated neutrality.The strange thing is that in these large and small countries that claim to be democratic, the so-called "communist world conspiracy theory" has no serious relationship with their domestic political situation, at least in the few years after the end of the war.Among democracies, only the president of the United States was elected on the basis of anti-communism (such as Kennedy in 1960); but in fact, in terms of domestic politics, communism is to the United States just like Buddhism is to Ireland. Relate.However, if you want to talk about the so-called spirit of the Crusades and let it play a role in the real politics of international power confrontation, the one who plays the role of the Crusaders is the Washington authorities.But in fact, although Kennedy’s campaign rhetoric is eloquent, the key meaning is not to warn the communist power to dominate the world, but to maintain the immediate call for the United States to dominate real power.However, we have to add that although the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) do not fully agree with the US policy, as long as the military power that implements the political system of terror exists for a day, only under the protection of the US can they China's security can be guaranteed, so it is willing to regard the United States as the right.The distrust of the Soviet Union by these countries is by no means inferior to that of the United States.All in all, the "containment policy" is certainly in line with everyone's wishes, but the complete elimination of communism is not.