Do you think the end of the Cold War increased narcissism?

Post Reply New Topic

As % of GDP?

Well maybe as an end, sure, but American capitalism has lifted 4 billion people out of poverty, the world's living standard is higher then at any time in history since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Triumph of capitalism, America the obvious engine of growth, but especially in Europe, followed by BRIC nations later. Capitalism is wild, untamed, and every 40 years we undergo a major depression, where we take the world down with us, but are the fastest to recover, and we come out of it stronger then ever.

The European social and economic model cannot work if life is just about enjoying career, entitlements, and travel, because the incentive to have children becomes nonexistent. Perhaps a mix between the Swedes/Germans, and the French/Israeli's (who are actually reproducing above replacement rate) could be appropriate. Otherwise you have to import labor in to sustain the system.

It did not win WWII by its industrial capacity at all. It won it by Stalin's lunacy. Not only Stalin's lunacy though, but by pressures from the Americans, but Stalin is still key here. The German war machine was effective, for every 1 german that died, 4 or more soviets lost their lives, but strategic blunders on Stalins behalf gave us the 27 million soviets dead.

We were in Vietnam for the same reasons we were in Korea, and no one complains about Korea and American markets, and look at where they are at today. Vietnam is not Poland. Poland was run by a dictator who oppressed basic human rights, from freedom of religion to freedom of speech, a free press, a fair and independent judiciary, etc. Look at where Japan, Israel, South Korea, and Germany are today. In many respects, the envy of the world.

Wars in Europe stopped for many reasons, two of which are very important to understand.

1.)They became democratic states, which is key, because democracies go to war less with each other as a general rule, and are more likely to participate openly in the international community, thus less likely to act only out of their own self-interests. I mean, had that not been the case, what could keep ultra nationalists rising to power in any European nation as a result of the depressed state of things? Why isn't France at war with Spain? Why isn't Italy taking over Croatia? The entire continent has been largely subdued from its newly found democratic

2.) The other reason is a psychological one that pervades much of the left: From their experience in WWII, instead of learning to fight evil, they have learned that fighting was evil. It explains their ability to stand around at watch ethnic cleansing take place on the continent, and not do anything about it. Then you see cases, such as the recent Libya intervention, of overcompensation for their embarrassing history of being too close to dictators of oppressed peoples and not fighting on the behalf of others. It is a struggle for the European soul, and they don't want to be like the Americans, but they are also learning they cannot sit by while mass murder takes place because imagine if America had done so during WWII and said it is not our problem.

Yes, but you have to be measured about it. The west doesn't have 19th century style "pure capitalism" where markets are completely unchecked. Capitalism can create incentives for innovation and allow consumers far more choices than other systems, but without any checks, capitalism has little concern for the equitable distribution of resources or social welfare. It can't be allowed to become a rabid engine that cannibalizes itself and drives modern societies that are dependent on technology into massive debt and eventually poverty and social unrest. The fact that the US and the West has benefited greatly from cheap labor is finally coming back to bite us in the rear since the debt bubble of the past 40 years is now deflating.


At this point a labor shortage would be a blessing. The scarcity you invent is artificial. There is scarcity in some impoverished African nations and places like North Korea and Iran that are largely cut off from the global trade. In the west there is no scarcity. For the most part there is an overabundance. We encourage over-consumption just to keep the proles employed.

I know of all three elements you mentionned.

Both events actually highlight, in my opinion, how much the system worked. Notice how nothing happened, and how the matter was dealt with peacefully.

I will not read the book. Quoting books without mentionning anything else is lazy and useless. I don't have enough spare time to read a whole book in order to answer an Internet debate.


How can one win through lunacy? Your argument does not make sense. Also, a lot of the 27 million deaths were civilians murdered by the Germans, quite a few died of hunger during sieges or because of the destructions of war (the German troops were even more thorough at scorched earth tactics than the Soviet ones), yet more died in prisoner camps. Generally speaking, Soviet gear was also less effective than German gear, they just made more of it. You can hardly blame Stalin for everything, especially since he intervened less and less as the war went on. The initial push by the Germans could be partly blamed on him (and on poor leadership in general -- Voroshilov), but the Germans also beat Poland, France, Yugoslavia, etc., basically without a scratch, and ahead of schedule for the most part, whereas Barbarossa was late in achieving its (admittedly optimistic) deadlines almost from the start.

You will notice that Tsarist Russia was economically exhausted from the very start of the First World War, despite the fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary were both fighting two-front wars (or more, depends: West Front, Serbia, Russia, then Italy, then the remakes of the Balkan wars, all while helping the Ottomans who had three fronts of their own), and was a lost case by late 1916, after less than three years of fighting. From Barbarossa to Bagration (just over three years), Russia was fighting a Germany with only token commitments on other fronts, even more allies than during the Great War (the splinter Austro-Hungarian nations + almost all the Balkans) -- and won. Yes, economic support from the Americans helped, but the British also sent help in the First World War (+ Japan was on the Allied side in the Far East). On the "lunacy" front, Stalin was generally incapable, but so was Nicolas II, so its comparable. Maybe Hitler was more idiotic that the imperial Supreme Command, but he was still giving much margin of action to his very competent generals at the beginning of the Eastern campaigns, so I'd say the Germans had better leadership than the first time.

What major change happened between Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa? That's right, rapid industrialisation.


South Vietnam was run by a lunatic dictator who was so crazy that the CIA had to replace him, after a time, by another despot who would be less of a mediatic disaster. The Americans went there to keep said despots in place against the more popular Communist (who were actually nationalists with a social bent) settled in the North.

Vietnam was worst than Poland.


I don't disagree with the reasons you gave for the end of wars in Europe. I think my (cynical) one and yours complement each other rather well, in fact. There is never only one explanation.

Might I humbly point out that you *may* have fallen victim to this phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias


If you (1) make sweeping generalizations about the possible outcomes of the Cold War and (2) refuse to read what is probably the most influential work ever written on the Cold War... well, just saying...

GGPViper, you say that the cold war threatened humanity's survival as if the *threat* of human destruction and the fear that resulted was necessarily a bad thing.....................Why? Maybe it was unpleasant for some but sometimes unpleasant things bring out the best in us.

Only If we actually survive... As I have been pointing out, the Cold War wasn't just some unpleasant phenomenon. If the US and the USSR has unleashed even a *fraction* of their full nuclear arsenal against each other during the Cold War, it would likely have wiped out all life on Earth except the most simple micro-organisms.

Even today, after decades of disarmament, the maximum payload of a *single* Ohio Class Submarine could perhaps bring about the destruction of the entire human species...

In other words: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But what if it actually kills you?

I it not dreadful to define one's very essence and existence by one's enemies?

ruveyn

The thing is, i think in hindsight many of us are starting to contemplate that maybe, just maybe we were backing the 'wrong horse' throughout those years.

Personally I think we in the west were probably told as many lies about the east as they were told about us.

Stalinism and Capitalism were both sides of the same rotten coin.

Was the Soviet Union really to blame for that? I'm sure that those caught in the religious fever of Christianity and Capitalism contributed to that. Just because we happened to win doesn't mean we weren't a bunch of bastards.

I won't say that what you are wrong on this. I may be biased. However, all that can be said is that nuclear war was averted, and that the many crises did not lead to major conflagrations. If the Concert of Europe can be said to have prevented major wars, so can Cold War politics. It may have been playing with fire, but no harm was done. I count that as a success.

Fiction-history aside, there exists only one knowable outcome to the Cold War: the historical one. The rest is pure speculation, including whatever "sweeping generalization" I may have made.


Why is it the most influential work? What does it say? Can't you give me a hint?

Read again: This is an Internet debate. I have a (rather busy) life outside my computer, which is why I rarely follow more than two threads at once. I come here exactly when I have nothing else to do or when I am too weary to effectively do something more constructive.

On a sidenote, I find the way you say things very arrogant and patronizing. What you said it the first quote, specifically, offended me. You could have conveyed the exact same information by saying: "You're point of view is biased. It's easier to say this with the benefit of hindsight." In general, I dislike how you just link to Wikipedia articles in a "you should already know this" manner -- in this case, I did. If you think I am biased, say so and explain why. If you want to use an event to examplify your point, describe the event and how it supports your point, with links as complement only if necessary. Thank you.

American culture had already taken over before the Cold War ended. That was one of the things the Soviets could never compete with us at. culture. They could compete in science, even beat us sometimes, but they always lost the cultural battle.

I find American culture to be an unpleasant mix of everything around you screaming "consume!" and a habit of divesting oneself of responsibility through religion or other methods of passing the buck for bad decision making.

You have made no point that refutes my claim of hindsight bias.


Well, It got Schelling a NOBEL PRIZE! So perhaps you should shut up about topics that you clearly have no knowledge about at all. Some of us actually go to great lengths to ensure that our posts aren't filled with pure BS... Oh, and in case you actually *won't* lift a finger reading 300 pages by a Nobel Laureate, let me break it down: The Cold War dynamics are a hell of a lot more complicated than just "mutual interest".


I care little for you motivations for posting on WP. If you post BS, I will call you out on it...


Fine: The Abler Archer 83 incident is supported (and even predicted) by the following pages in The Strategy of Conflict: 188, 201, 203, 220ff, 244, 246ff.

And if I seem arrogant and patronizing, then it is because I am rarely wrong...

Yes, just like all of the other titans of the mind that spend their time squabbling in a forum.