Even so, were would it have been if intervention attempts by Uncle Sam against Cuba succeeded? Name one country that is better of than it was before western intervention.
Does the life quality of populace increase or did it decrease on countries that US of A intervened? I do not understand US fear of communism(by definition ussr did not even have communism, it was something else may be call it ussr-communism?). Both countries were allies in world war. What was the need for a piss of contest between the two? I would say ussr's involvement in cold war was caused by passive aggressive tactics began by USA. It was USA who first deployed nuclear weapons near Russian border. When russia deployed in response in cuba, suddenly that was news and more fear mongering to justify their actions that caused it in the first place. Most americans didn't even know that it was their country that started it. And in the fear of communism, they took destructive actions. Just like they are doing it now in the name of terrorism, but actually making the problem even more worse.
> Does the life quality of populace increase or did it decrease on countries that US of A intervened?
Yes, I understand that's the question at hand. In the case of Korea, there is a good argument to be made that the entire country would have had the quality of life North Korea has if it were not for the intervention.
> by definition ussr did not even have communism
Yes, and neither did China, nor Cuba, nor Vietnam, etc, etc. At some point we end up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In any case, the fear was of "the thing calling itself communism", not "theoretical platonic communism".
The fear, at least for people who actually thought about the matter, was based on the following facts:
1) Communism (as it was being practiced; I will assume this parenthetical henceforth) was incompatible with fundamental aspects of society that were considered important in the US. For a simple example, if you look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the US constitution), the only right that was not being actively being violated in the countries that called themselves "communist" was the one granted by the Third Amendment. Well, except it _was_ being violated in the USSR in the early 20s. But generally 20th century nation-states have housed their own soldiers.
2) Communism was actively expansionist when it had the chance to be; see eastern Europe, the Korean peninsula.
3) Communism had as part of its doctrine the goal of fomenting revolutions in countries that were not yet communist.
4) There were communist parties in various countries, including the US, and some of their members (not all, yes) were actively involved in item #3.
5) There were various people in the US who were not members of the communist party but were clearly sympathetic to the idea of the communist party having more power or seizing power altogether. A number of these people were highly placed in the existing US government.
So at least in some quarters there was the perception of a plausible existential threat to the US as currently constituted (literally; throw out the Constitution and replace it with a totally different setup).
In addition to this, there was of course the usual fear of the other, the fear of the labor movement on the part of owners of capital, and so forth. In many cases these various reasons for fear were self-reinforcing.
> Both countries were allies in world war.
Yes. That doesn't always mean much on its own; the USSR and Germany were allies from 1939 to 1941.
> What was the need for a piss of contest between the two?
This is a question without a simple answer.
To some extent, in both cases, it was driven by domestic political considerations. It's a lot easier to maintain power if you keep telling people there are external enemies they need to worry about and hence shouldn't rock the domestic political boat too much. In the case of the USSR this was a quite explicit (and longstanding; it dates back to the 20s) policy of the Communist Party. In the US, I think it was a bit more opportunistic and not as organized.
Add to that concerns regarding the fate of allies, the pre-existing tensions I talk about below, and lots of stuff I am not thinking of right now and may not even know about...
> I would say ussr's involvement in cold war was caused by passive aggressive tactics began by USA.
The tension dates back way longer than that. There were quite a number of people in the US who fundamentally mistrusted the USSR for the reasons listed above, and that distrust went back to the original October Revolution. There were quite a number in the USSR, including in high government positions, who distrusted the US because of its participation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Rus... . There was tension over the UN declaration of human rights and its article 13. There was tension over the post-war division of Europe. I'm sure you're aware of the Soviet blockade of West Berlin and the ensuing Berlin Airlift; that situation was not precipitated by the US. The Korean War was not precipitated by the US.
Claiming that the US "began" the cold war in some sort of sole act of aggression involves some serious revision of history as far as I can tell.
> It was USA who first deployed nuclear weapons near Russian border.
Yes. The context was that the US was looking for a way to be able to defend western Europe from invasion by Warsaw Pact forces. There was no realistic way to match those in terms of actual troop numbers and materiel without deploying a _lot_ more troops to Europe than the US was willing to do (for various reasons, including cost), so nuclear deterrent was viewed as a way to provide the needed defensive capabilities.
I agree that it was an escalation of the nuclear situation. I don't know to what extent the fears of a Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany (say) were justified. But given what had just happened on the Korean peninsula a few years earlier, they weren't entirely baseless. I won't claim the missile deployment in Turkey and Italy was the right call, but I have a hard time categorically saying it was the wrong call...
> When russia deployed in response in cuba, suddenly that was news
In the US, sure. The deployment in Turkey was sure news in the USSR. ;)
> Most americans didn't even know that it was their country that started it
Indeed.
> Just like they are doing it now in the name of terrorism
I think the fear of communism was a _lot_ more justified than the current fear of terrorism. In particular, communism was a _lot_ more successful both in terms of seizing power and in terms of gaining mindshare in countries where it was not yet in power. For example, I have yet to see a US government official saying it would be good if the US were run more like ISIS-controlled areas. There were quite a few saying that sort of thing about communism in the 40s.
Again, I won't claim the US response to the threat was perfect. But I think the threat was real, and did need a response.
I meant to take into account all results of US interventions from the end of world war 2. Its a net negative result for affected citizens due to underhanded tactics by US. And for US too. Which is why USA is no more a world leader. It would have had plausibility if it didn't constantly try to undermine other democratic countries atleast. But no, every other country is a possible enemy. Spying even the heads of states of allies only proves that attitude and pushes them to actually become an enemy when these underhanded tactics comes to light.
Interchange usa with ussr and communism with capitalism in the above para. Then read it as if you are from ussr.
What I would strongly advocate for is open governance. That would prevent waging war for profit. Perhaps those who calls for war should lead it like old times. Waging war for profit in the comfort of your home while your soldiers die like expendibles causes career politicians to take that risk. If won its profit, if lost then its just an election for them.
I wonder if law banning hipocracy is the answer. Most Politicians does not experience suffering of commons.I wouldn't have a problem with most politicians if at least half of them displayed an expertise in solving real problems rather than expertise in saving face
Here is a very good article that has many ideas I strongly agree with. It addresses many fundamental problems involved.
> Its a net negative result for affected citizens due to underhanded tactics by US
Net negative compared to the counterfactual of perfect interventions or the counterfactual of no interventions?
Again, I think there were lots of cases in which the US screwed up. That's easier to tell in hindsight in some of those cases. On the ground at the time, was it obvious that the Korean War was a good idea and the Vietnam War a bad one? (I think it _did_ become obvious that the Vietnam War was a bad idea quite a bit before the US actually pulled out of it; again, I won't claim that the US didn't make preventable mistakes!)
What I don't have a good handle on is what the world would look like if the US post WWII had adopted the sort of foreign policy it had in 1910 or 1925 and just minded its own business and ignored the rest of the world. And if you're not suggesting it should have done _that_, then I'm not sure what you're suggesting, exactly.
> Which is why USA is no more a world leader.
Is the USA less of a world leader than in the 1920s or 1930s? I don't think so.
Is it less of one than it was in 1946? Maybe, but that was inevitable, for at least two obvious reasons:
1) Its economic influence decreased as its share of world GDP dropped (which it _had_ to; in 1946 a lot of the rest of the world's industrial capacity was in ruins, and let's not get started on the service sector in most of 1946 Europe, Japan, China, USSR). Also, the dependence of other countries on US exports or aid dropped from 1946 to now, generally speaking. This is, of course, a good thing.
2) The rest of the world caught up to the US in some areas in which it had had moral leadership, thus decreasing the moral leadership aspect. As one example, the non-communist European countries which hadn't done so yet finally got around to introducing women's suffrage (Belgium 1948, France 1944, Greece 1952, Italy 1945, Liechtenstein 1984, Portugal 1976, San Marino 1959, Spain 1976, Switzerland 1971 or 1991 depending on how you count).
Which countries would you consider to be more "world leaders" than the US at the moment? Or is your claim that the US is no longer _the_ world leader (as if it ever were)? I would say that's a very good thing.
> Spying even the heads of states of allies
Do you seriously believe that the US is the only country doing that? I would be quite shocked if this were the case.
> Then read it as if you are from ussr.
I _am_ from the USSR (back when there was one). So yes, I have some idea, both from my reading and from talking to people of my parents' and grandparents' generation of what things looked like from that side. A bit from personal experience as well, but that covers a somewhat small slice of post-WWII history of the USSR.
> What I would strongly advocate for is open governance.
> I wonder if law banning hipocracy is the answer.
I'm not sure whether you mean http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hipocracy or something else. "Hipocracy" is not a word I've seen before you used it just now, and I can find no other references to it. Not sure whether you mean "hypocrisy", but that wouldn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph that follows the above-quoted sentence...
> Here is a very good article that has many ideas I strongly agree with.
Thank you for the link. I'll need to take some time to read it and think before I can comment on it intelligently.
Now please convince the Latvians of that, say. Seriously, the case that the second half of the 20th century would have turned out better with an isolationist US is a hard case to make.
> Just because other governments do it doesn't make it right.
I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is that alliances are not permanent...
> And I spelled hypocrisy wrong.
Then as I said, I don't understand the rest of your paragraph.
> My understanding is the world would be a better place if everyone works together and live peacefully.
Sure. We'd need no police, no armies, etc. It would be pretty nice.
