Cold War Gone Hot

pbfoot said:

Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO

Click to expand...

yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.

pbfoot said:

Yes it is agiven that the USSR when bankrupt
Prior to that it was a Mexican standoff it was as close to war to it could get at points , I really doubt many of you remember the Cuban Missle crisis or the invasion of Prague and other similar incidents.
Of course your not aware of false Navaids set up to entice aircraft or ships to encroach Soviet territory.
Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO
Was it the intention of the USSR to get Western Europe Yes
Were Nuclear armed bombers on both sides orbiting 24/7
Were Nuclear armed armed subs sitting off both sides coast 24/7
Why would Canada have 400 fighters in Europe in the 50's and 60's?
maybe so they some uncongested airspace and good weather to fly in


If NATO does not exist Kruska would now be whining about driving a Trabant or Lada

Click to expand...

invasion of prague ? are you talking about prague spring ? when the population of prague was instigated to make protests by the "radio free europe" - a western instrument of propaganda then ussr army occupy the country and nato did nothing ?

funny thing is that i found a website of RFE, seems like they still instigating people against ussr or what they think still been ussr. should nato thinks russia is ussr too ?

i think in the past some soviet low profile supporters could said to some eastern germans protesters that if the wall wasnt built they would be driving mercedes or bmw´s maybe a vw passat...

ridiculous isnt ? a trabant for a bmw... but the real deal is the wall. still in some people minds...

Ramirezzz said:

yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.

Click to expand...

The key word being preemptive

pbfoot said:

The key word being preemptive

Click to expand...

preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?

JugBR said:

preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?

Click to expand...

I'm in Canada ......but you being from Brazil with its 20 long years of Democracy 1988 its hard to tell the difference .
I guess your right they built that wall and fence just to keep us away from that socialist paradise
I always used to say to myself don't those Young Pioneer uniforms look so much better then my Boy Scout suit and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church

pbfoot said:

I'm in Canada ......but you being from Brazil with its 20 long years of Democracy 1988 its hard to tell the difference .
I guess your right they built that wall and fence just to keep us away from that socialist paradise
I always used to say to myself don't those Young Pioneer uniforms look so much better then my Boy Scout suit and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church

Click to expand...

pb, in 70´s we spank your commies and fry them with electric wires. to defend freedom we throw some marxist students in the ocean... all in the name of the fight against the reds.

wheres the recognition ?

Augusto Pinochet, Costa e Silva, Emilio Garrastazu médici, Jorge Rafael Videla great names of the fight for a free world !

btw our first democratic ellection wasnt in 1988, but in 1990 and it was a good stuff because wouldnt took the risk of ellect a comunist president ! thats what the right wingers from military dictatureships and the CIA fellows believed.

whe have democracy before that, but in 64, our president gave a stupid medal for che guevara then was decided brazil should no longer be a democracy.

freedon is when you have the right to choose... the right option !!!



and isnt that in everywhere ?

how many comunists canada killed or tortured ? we killed them in many forms, not good enough ? we also tortured thousand of those red commies giving to them hard sequels for all life. of course some of those wasnt really commies, just students, or democrats, peacefull people, but who cares ? i dont care, wasnt me, let them burn in hell !

not complaining buddy, just asking for the appropriate recognition for the work done. and hell it was well done !!!

pbfoot said:

.......and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church

Click to expand...

Hell, for no money in the world would I like to book a beach trip to the super democratic lead Cuban - US compound to make a confession. Or does quantity or numbers decide about right and wrong?

As for your pro NATO argumentation above and Canadas contribution: If Germany had been on its own to defend its territory without any outside help and no restrictions on its weapons development and purchase program (its "NATO Brothers" did not allow Germany to possess ABC weapons), Russia would have never attacked, since it would have resulted into the same devestating outlook. And Ronald would still have screwed them into bankrupcy.

NATO was a blown up, overproportionate, conventional weapons, $$ consuming waste, simply because Germany was denied ABC weapons in order to protect itsself. And as a result, Germany had no choice but to seek protection within NATO to evade a possible retaliation by Russia that was getting itsself into a Cold War with the US and as such with NATO.

Oh sure, we were such fantastic NATO buddies that we Germans had to get the approval from our NATO brethrens - and had to countersign "securities" in order to receive the "permission" to reunite with our own countrymen in East Germany. A guy called Gorbi and a Russian government (Communists) did not impose a single questionable demand on us in regards to Germany's reunification, but meerly politely forwarded a need for financial support.
That is what I call a friend and a truly outright government, especially after what the Germans had done to Russia 45 years before.

We had US NATO officer comrades, standing behind us during manouvers with their hands on their pistols, simulating the clear order to use weapon force if the Germans would not act accordingly to NATO orders, and many other not public known issues. NATO's ABC arsenal was pointed at Germany besides the reds.

So I would about be the last person to be impressed about this NATO "one for all and all for one" BS

How come the evil big red bear never attacked the helpless non NATO countries, Finland and Sweden? after all to certain NATO believes (Until today) Stalin and his followers wanted to conquer the West. How come they never attacked Iran? (You must know that Iran has oil) How come that they never even attacked anyone after 1950. Yes they oppressed liberation movements in their sattelite countries, were is the difference to what Holland did in Indonesia, France, Portugal, Spains and Englands Colonial wars. Not to mention the wars the US was involved in with their own army until today.

Off all the things in regards to NATO you forward the US-Cuban Crisis, I love that one, what was Pershing II in the 80's about? what was and is NATO doing presently? Russia would say they are moving the threat of NATO's Armed Forces just next to Russias borders. Offcourse NATO calls it a defence against the ever evil big bear, who is in an everlasting attack mood.

The Russians tried to base nukes next to the US, the US intervened - I got no objection to this - Hell the Russians had hundreds of nukes next to Germany - probably NATO and the US should have threatend them with a Nuke war. The Russians took them away from Cuba (only Cuba) and replaced them with nuke carring subs - who could get even closer to the US.

pbfoot, I am not blind to what Russia did or wanted, but I am not one sided and therefore do not close my eyes towards the other side.

Regards
Kruska

...there's that confliction again.

Matt308 said:

...there's that confliction again.

Click to expand...

Which you obiously have - being one sided -

If you would care to acctually read and understand my post, e.g. first statement, you might be able to understand that I am just forwarding that the Siberian camps and interrogation methods used by Russia are just as much against human rights (About which the US cares sooooo much) as those that the US is maintaining on Cuba.

Regards
Kruska

Siberian camps and interrogation methods = Camp Gitmo

Bloody brilliant.

Again the confliction.

Matt308;Siberian camps and interrogation methods = Camp Gitmo

Bloody brilliant.

Thanks, I hoped so

Oh, I just noticed that you made mod, congratulations - what a confliction -

Regards
Kruska

Easy Simba. Consider yourself warned.

Kruska said:

Oh, I just noticed that you made mod, congratulations - what a confliction -

Regards
Kruska

Click to expand...

What's up with the personal attacks here?

As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.
The soviet version of Axis of Evil those days went from US through Israel to Pakistan. Great Britain along with Japan, as I recall, were rearly mentioned as unfriendly, more in context of being US' puppets in their regions.

Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict.
A seize fire agreement would have been signed on day two of the war.

With Brezhnev's doctrine of "Peaceful coexistance" I dont think it would be the soviets to fire the first shot, but if under attack, they had guts to go all the way to the end, crazy commies.

So, I vote for Nuclear Holocaust.

stasoid said:

As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.
The soviet version of Axis of Evil those days went from US through Israel to Pakistan. Great Britain along with Japan, as I recall, were rearly mentioned as unfriendly, more in context of being US' puppets in their regions.

Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict.
A seize fire agreement would have been signed on day two of the war.

With Brezhnev's doctrine of "Peaceful coexistance" I dont think it would be the soviets to fire the first shot, but if under attack, they had guts to go all the way to the end, crazy commies.

So, I vote for Nuclear Holocaust.

Click to expand...

as one of those who grew in s. america in 80´s when the military dicatureship was ending, i learned first that comunists was evil people that ate childrens. soviet union wanted to conquest our lands and take off our "freedom".

those who supported marxist ideals was like devils and should be defeated by or national security forces. a student that complained about government was a terrorist for example.

then came the democracy and everything became confuse. the marxists wasnt evil anymore and the dictatureship pro-usa tortured, killed or banned those who was for a democratic government.

stasoid i think in both sides, we had the impression everything is normal and goes fine. but now we see that soviet union like south american dictatureships was very brutal regim. in the end, everything was allowed to defeat the enemy. this talk about "free world against evil empire" is some kind of propaganda. the "free world" wasnt that free and the "evil empire" wasnt that evil, but both leaders was superpowers and like all superpowers led all world into a struggle of ideologies and power between themselves.

-----------------------------------------

well if a nuclear war really happened, i believe would be good that a soviet bomb fall right over my house. then the death would be quick and painless. others wouldnt had the same lucky. they would die weeks or months after the war.

i think the only guys to survive, would be the presidents of major western powers and their staff, with some playmates and top models and the soviet leaders with some "comunist version of playmates and top models"

the rest of us(the suckers) would die like miserable rats !

stasoid said:

As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.

Click to expand...

Well as someone who grew up in Germany during that same time period and I do not recall that kind of feeling here in Germany towards the US. Relations were actually pretty damn good.

Please state your facts that show that Germany felt they were taken hostage? Communist propaganda does not count either...

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Well as someone who grew up in Germany during that same time period and I do not recall that kind of feeling here in Germany towards the US. Relations were actually pretty damn good.

Please state your facts that show that Germany felt they were taken hostage? Communist propaganda does not count either...

Click to expand...

Hello D.A.I.G,

there were strong antiamerican ressentiments in Germany indeed. Remember all those demonstrations against the stationing of US troops in Germany etc. I know quite a lot of German students from my Austauschprogramm and they are not that proamerican either.

Ramirezzz said:

Hello D.A.I.G,

there were strong antiamerican ressentiments in Germany indeed. Remember all those demonstrations against the stationing of US troops in Germany etc. I know quite a lot of German students from my Austauschprogramm and they are not that proamerican either.

Click to expand...

There was a loud segment of the European society that was strongly left in the late 70s. Red Army Faction (Baader-Mienhoff), Red Brigade and similar groups had substantial support amongst the student populations of Western Europe. It's something of a phase students go through in college. However, for every 100 or so sympathizer, there was only one that actually did anything (usually marches or graphitti).

There were even groups of that type in the US. SDS, SLA and the Weathermen would be examples.

However, these groups were very small and did not reflect the general consensus of the population. When their actions moved from the arena of protests the active revolution, there was a violent and visceral reaction by the population against them. Such support as they had (very limited at it's best) dissappeared and the groups were hunted down and jailed.

The idea that Western Europe was in some way negative as a whole to the US presence is very, very far fetched.

stasoid said:

Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict.
A seize fire agreement would have been signed on day two of the war.

Click to expand...

From what I have read, the Soviets didn't put their subs in the Atlantic that often. Not the boomers. It was a mistake of the west to think the Russian sub fleet operated on the same strategic basis as the Nato navies.

My understanding is the Soviets knew of the SOSUS line and the strong probability of their sub fleet being tracked once they passed Iceland. As such, they usually didn't send their boomers south.

There strategy was to keep them north and west of Murmansk in what was called "the bastion". The Boomers were protected by the Attack subs. It was the job of the Nato Attack subs to go up there and find them, under the ice.

Even now specifics are hard to get but the general understanding is they were a reserve and not the front line force, launched as a second or third line attack. The Strategic Rocket Services, being relatively immoble, were the first line and first launch weapons, along with the long range bombers. The primary targets were not American or European cities but Counter Attack or Attack assets (Missle Silos, Airports, Sub Bases, ect.). The average warhead was in the range of 550kt and usually were mirvs.

The cities are usually the last thing hit, and at that point, you are just going for mass destruction anyway. When the cities start going up in smoke, your talking Armageddon.

JugBR said:

well if a nuclear war really happened, i believe would be good that a soviet bomb fall right over my house. then the death would be quick and painless. others wouldnt had the same lucky. they would die weeks or months after the war.

i think the only guys to survive, would be the presidents of major western powers and their staff, with some playmates and top models and the soviet leaders with some "comunist version of playmates and top models"

the rest of us(the suckers) would die like miserable rats !

Click to expand...

Actually Jug, I think you would've probably survived it. South American was not nuclearized and really had a limited threat to anyone. Same with Africa and the middle east. Being that most weather paterns stay north and south of the equator, even nuclear fallout would've been (probably, but not definitely) limited in your end of the world.

Instead of being destroyed by a Nuclear war, odds are Brazil would've probably come out as some kind of regional superpower. Not because of anything she did, but because she wasn't in it at all.