The first military confrontation of Cold War

I don't disagree with any of that. I just thought it was interesting to figure out which was the first such confrontation. Why can't you trace it back to the events in Russia in 1917-1920 or so, when the US and Britain were intervening, partly through subventions of the White Army, in the new USSR?

You can't go back any further than that because there wasn't any USSR before that.

In other words, isn't it plausible that the Cold War started right after the revolution? (Thought it sputtered out from time to time, and the two sides came together in June 1941.)

Just a thought.

I'll delete any further references to Munich by anyone in this thread because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which was to do with what can be called the first military confrontation of the Cold War, and the players in the Cold War were by and large the so-called Communist countries on one side and the so-called capitalist ones on the other.

Originally posted by Bankotsu Does munich pact count as alliance deadkenny? The four states agreed to carve up Czechoslovakia.

You're entitle to 'think' whatever you want.  Depending on how 'credible' the beliefs you state are, you will either enhance or diminish your credibility with others.  With Munich, Germany was achieving her aim of occupying Czech territory.  The French and British were simply monitoring the transition in order to ensure it was peaceful.  France and Britain were no more 'allies' of Germany in occupying Czechoslovakia than UN peacekeeping troops are 'allies' of nations when they deploy troops (although I sure some zealots on either side might tend to see them as 'allies' of their opponents). 

Unlike the Soviet Union with Poland, France and Britain did not participate in the occupation of Czech territory.  They simply 'agreed' not to take action against Germany as Germany acted unilaterally.  IF France and / or Britain had occupied Czech territory, then you might have a case.  IF the Soviet Union had not actually attacked Poland, or occupied any territory, then there would not be much case for referring to their agreement with the Nazi's as an alliance. 

Originally posted by gcle2003 Hitler on the other hand was not anti-bolshevik between Sep 1939 and May 1940, which was what the question involved.

Hitler's policy towards Soviet Union changed, but his anti-bolshevik outlook remained.

For example, during Anglo-German war, Hitler's pro-british outlook remained the same, even though they were at war:

(1) Guenther Blumentritt was interviewed about Adolf Hitler's views on the plans to invade Britain in 1940.

Hitler was in very good humour, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been 'a decided miracle', and gave us his opinion that the war would be - finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.

He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where there is planing, there are shavings flying'. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church - saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.

He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWsealoin.htm


So, the politics changed, but the anti-bolshevik attitude remained the same for Hitler, in the same sense that Hitler was never anti-british in attitude, war or no war.

Originally posted by Bankotsu Originally posted by gcle2003 Germany wasn't anti-Bolshevik between Sep 39 and May 40. Hitler was still anti-bolshevik in attitude, which was the same as Chamberlain.

Originally posted by deadkenny  "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

Whose definition is that?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Germany wasn't anti-Bolshevik between Sep 39 and May 40.

Hitler was still anti-bolshevik in attitude, which was the same as Chamberlain.

Germany and the SU were allied.

No, I don't think so, there was no treaty aimed at alliance between the two.

Originally posted by gcle2003 It would.  I hate to ask this, but why on earth do you think 1944-45 was similar to September 1939 to May 1940?

There is some similarity I think.

During phoney war period, France/Britain and Germany were technically at war, but actually both sides were anti-bolshevik, so it seemed that they were on the "same side".