Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The first military confrontation of Cold War
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511 		  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The first military confrontation of Cold War
    Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:11

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


I think munich pact should count as alliance according to above definition.



(2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

(3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich1.htm






Edited by Bankotsu - 10-Aug-2008 at 12:13
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 13:50
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). 
 
That all contrasts sharply with the situation with Poland and the Soviet Union.  Both Germany and the Soviet Union had an interest in destroying Poland as it was then constituted and both wished to occupy certain portions of Polish territory.  Both attacked and fought Poland, they occupied portions of Polish territory that was mutually agreed upon.  Of course I don't expect you to appreciate that distinction, since it has been clear to me for sometime that you are not expressing sincerely held thoughts or beliefs, but are simply spamming and trolling.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 13:54
Originally posted by Bankotsu

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.
Allying yourself with people, and agreeing to help further each other's aims is hardly bein 'anti-'
 
You keep judging people by what they say instead of what they do, which is much more pertinent. Hitler was anti-German-Communist during his rise to power, and anti-Soviet Union from June 1941 on, but you shouldn't confuse being anti-Communist with being anti-Soviet (which I presume you mean by anti-Bolshevik) just as you shouldn't confuse Stalin's regime with Communism.
 
Dictators collaborate with one another as and when it suits them.
 
And admiring the British and the British Empire is miles away from being pro-British.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 14:00
Originally posted by Bankotsu


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



Silly childish nonsense. As we have noted before you appear to have not the slightest knowledge about the period whatsoever.
 
Despite what you say, France, Britain and Italy did NOT occupy Czechoslovakia, neither did they do a deal with Hitler to occupy any other countries.
 
That you should believe they did shows a mind-blowing ignorance of the period.
 
Moreover the Munich agreement is irrelevant to the thread, since there was no military confrontation involved, certainly not between the two sides of the Cold War, so please keep off it. It's irrelevant and redundant here.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 10-Aug-2008 at 14:00
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511 		  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 08:48
Originally posted by deadkenny

With Munich, Germany was achieving her aim of occupying Czech territory.


But that was also the british aim.


...He alluded to a luncheon meeting of 10 May 1938 hosted by Lady Astor, where Chamberlain reportedly communicated to twelve American journalists his secret plans concerning a Four-Power Pact in Europe, with the exclusion of Russia.
The Premier also stated at that time that he was in favor of ceding the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia to the Germans...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KWQcos95hHsC&pg=P


Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Aug-2008 at 08:51
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 11:22
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.
Back to Top
Antioxos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Apr-2006
Location: Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 340 		  Quote Antioxos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:20
Originally posted by gcle2003

You would do better to take the clashes between the Royalist and Communist guerilla groups in Yugoslavia: they were definitely before the Greek uprising. Moreover weren't the Chinese Communists and the Nationalists fighting each other before 1944? And why stop in the '40s? The confrontation between the Communist (so-called) forces and the various members of the counter alliance started in Russia even before it arose in China.
 
However, the whole point about the 'Cold War' was that it was cold. It didn't have military engagements. Korea, for instance, was not part of the Cold War, unless you want to make nonsense of the term.
Cold war characterized from  the absence of a declared   war between the US and the Soviet Union, the rival states participated in a half-century of military buildup and political battles for support around the world. These activities included the significant involvement of allied and  satellite nation  in local "third party" wars.
The Cold War period was also characterized by international crises such as the Berlin Blockade  (1948–49), the  Korean War  (1950–53), the Berlin Crisis of 1961  the Vietnam War  (1959–1975), the  Soviet-Afghan War  (1979–89), and especially the 1962  Cuban Missile crsisis , when the world came to the brink of a Third world War .
The truth is that there is disagreement over the beginning of the Cold war
The difference of The December events  and the other conflicts (Yugoslavia,China)  was the direct intervention of British and actually they withdrew 4th Infantry Division (from a very  difficult front with germans) from Italy as reinforcements in Athens .
Greece belonged to the British sphere of influence and they maintained it.

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:43

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.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 15:31
Although the term 'influence' was actually used by Churchill himself, it is misleading to characterized 'spheres of influence' between the west and the Soviet Union as being somehow 'symmetrical'.  Really what it amounted to was keeping Greece out of Soviet 'control', as part of the 'traditional' policy of denying the 'Russians' (later Soviets) direct access to a Med port.  Since Stalin had more or less 'agreed' to not having 'control' of Greece, I do not see the British actions against the Greek communists as being part of the 'Cold War'. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.