Alfred001

I'm reading some things about the Cold War, and I keep trying to find the origin of this communism vs capitalism attitude, but I can't seem to find it.

I keep reading things like that China was excluded from the UN Security Council (or UN?) on the basis that they were communists.

Why would a country be hostile to another just because of a different economic model?

And on what grounds did the US try to help the White Russians during the Bolshevik revolution? Isn't the sensible view that that conflict was a matter of the Russian people and they oughta have the right to determine what kind of government/economic system they want?

I understand that the USSR and the US might have had different interests after WWII and conflicts might have arisen between them, but why did it not become US vs USSR rather than communism vs capitalism?

diddyriddick

While there was certainly that element of the communists/capitalists, the nature of the schism was deeper. After WWII, Stalin largely compelled eastern Europe to adopt communist governments. Rightly or wrongly, the Soviets wanted a buffer against western aggression. East Germany, Poland, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the former Czechoslovakia were all occupied by the Soviets and became Soviet satellites in spite of the fact that the treaty of Paris specified that all powers "take all measures necessary to secure to all persons under (its) jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting." The most obvious example of this Soviet intransigence was the isolation of Berlin. Under the treaty ending the war, western controlled Berlin would be administered by the western powers. Rather than abiding by that policy, Stalin tried to blockade (starve) West Berlin.

Moreover, the Soviets fomented communist groups undermining the natural political developments in western Europe. While many would like to believe that the Marshall plan was an altruistic gift by the Truman administration, it was Realpolitik. Italy, France, and even Great Britain were teetering on the brink of economic crisis; Moscow-sponsored groups attempted to capitalize on that crisis by affecting a communist takeover of those countries. Marshall's plan was a massive infusion of capital and infrastructure to prop up those western European economies until they could stabilize.

Moreover, while your characterization of the situation in China may be accurate, it is only half the truth. The west had allied itself with Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang during WWII-they considered him the legitimate leader of the Chinese people. With that in mind, Nationalist China was made one of the original permanent security council members. With a few exceptions, the world community didn't recognize the PRC until after that fact. So the choice of Nationalist China (however boneheaded it was) was, again, realpolitik.

asnys

In addition to the realpolitik aspect, there was also a general distrust of and hatred for communism dating back to before the Russian Revolution. Communism was seen by many in the West as a revolutionary ideology that threatened to overthrow the existing order. A Red Russia was threatening because it was feared it would support armed insurrection in the capitalist states. Hence why the West responded to the Russian Revolution by landing soldiers in Russia to assist the White Russians, and with actions like the Palmer Raids ( ).

sturm

Alfred001, those are good questions, and unfortunately there isn't only one answer to them.
Why did the US (and many other countries) intervene in the Russian revolution and did not let the russian people determine there future? Often in history we see that, how many times one country intervenes. Today we see countries that are bringing democracy by force, to other countries, and nobody asks the question why don't we leave the people to choose for themselfs.
Western countries during the Russian revolution fallowed there own interests, and naturally wanted the old regime to remain in power.

Diddyriddick, countries in Eastern Europe were indeed by a definition of the word occupied by the Soviet Army, but they weren't turned immediately to stalinist republics.
The so called "Fatherland fronts" were organized in some of those countries, this was a coalition of all parties that were in an opposition before and during the war. There were of course elections, and even referendums, for example in my country there was referendum should we remain monarchy or republic, more people voted for Republic.
How fair were those elections is a whole different point, yet even today i don't think that elections are fair, and we have seen examples of unfair elections in other countries as well, including in Western Europe and the US.

Britain also had its influence in some Eastern European countries, i can even give names of bulgarian politicians who were fallowing orders from London, and they were in fact part of the Fatherland front, they were in a coalition with the communist party.
Besides all that, what happened in Italy when the allies invaded Sicily and Southern Italy? US and UK made deals with a group of people from the current government of Musolini, they dictated who will rule independent Italy, the USSR was just observer, and maybe trough the heads of Soviet officials the idea that "If they can do it, why shouldn't we also do that in newly liberated countries?".

As for the Marshal plans i agree, yes western economies needed support to stabilize, and that was also important for the US. Stabilized European economy means market for the US goods, unstable and destroyed Europe, means less selling of US production. Marshal was helpful, however Truman doctrine was bad. This meant intervention, a gateway for further conflicts, a doctrine which in fact is contradictory with the principles of the US founding fathers.
And then this era of McCarthyism is even worse, in fact looking at US history, i believe this is one of the shameful pages of US history. Reminds me of the documentary i watched about a group of US pow's who after the Korean war, decided to continue there lifes in China (some of them are alive to this very day). All those pow's pointed the reason for not returning at the mccarthyism. Of course all those US soldiers were branded un-american, unpatriotic, and traitors, of course many believed that they were forced to stay in China and say all those things, yet today some of them are still alive and haven't change there position on this matter.

Perix

It was not the situation in Romania:
Romanian general election, 1946 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The communists and their electorate represented at the end of the war 1% from total. To increase their number they put the former legionars(iron guard-nazy party) under the perspective of jail or to join communists. So, their number increased, and legionars brought most of their electorate with them. Even so, the chaces to gain power for the communist party was zero, so, they formed an aliance with different former democratic parties(oposant to giants traditionals PNT and PNL), whom electorate was rather anti-communist. Even so, the elections were in reality lost- the results were falsified, under the surveillance of the soviet army. The real winner(PNT and PNL) were jailled in bloc. Till 1947-1949, the allies of the communists in elections shared the same faith, and thus the communists became the sole party

sturm

Eventually the communist became sole power here. Well there was so agrarian union, a party that served as a fake opposition, so when there are elections communist party gets 99% and 1% for the agrarian union.
In the first years, exactly after 1944, the communist party had little support, the members of this party were not that many. However it was the communist party that had the opportunity to present itself as the true opponent of past regime, the true anti-monarchist and anti-fascist force. The fact that Soviet army entered Bulgaria was also influential, for there decision to vote for the communist.
Communist party, despite having support or not, had the opportunity to make a totalitarian system from its very start, the communist party could have taken power and made everyone else illegal, yet the communist party didn't do such a thing.
The Western allies wanted free and democratic elections, let the people choose, so a coalition was formed, a coalition in which other parties (anti-communist) also took part.

Here all members of far right organizations (we also had Legion like the Iron guard, and Brannik like hitler's youth), were trialed and sent to jail.

Toomtabard

To the poster who said that the Communists tried to take over in Britain after 1945 my response is ''rubbish!.
Yes, for the first and last time in its history the British electorate in two British Parliamentary constituencies -West Fife in Scotland and one seat in London -had two Members of Parliament elected.
How that constitutes a ''Communist attempt at a U.K. takeover'' is beyond logic.
Now that the ''Communist takeover of Britain'' nonsense has been dealt with let's look at the political realities.
The British Communist Party was tiny and- yes- thanks to four upper class traitors -Burgess-McLean, Philby, Blunt-all Soviet agents in key postions -not totally without influence.
But in 1945 the British Labour left wing govt of 1945-51 -but firmly anti-Communist- Labour Party were elected with a majority of around 140 seats over Churchill and his Conservatives
In 1945 the Soviet people and in particular the Soviet soccer team Moscow Dynamos were hugely popular in Great Britiain while touring the country but most Britons were firm supporters of the anti-Communist /but Socialist Labour govt-there was never the slightest chance of the Communists ''taking over' or mounting a takeover of Great Britain despite some penetration of the British trade unions by Communists -who were often very popular with grass roots workers because that successfuly campaigned for concessions for their workers!-But overall control of the British Trade union movement was in the hands of democratic anti-Communist Labour govt supporters.
In 1948 -Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin played a leading role in organising the 1948 ''Berlin Airlift'' which scuppered Stalin's scheme to starve West Berliners into joining the Soviet bloc as Bevin organised the British wing of the Anglo-American air supplied blockade busting activities of the ''Berlin Airlift''.
Note also, Czechoslovakia WAS NOT oocupied in 1945 by the Soviets -who did hold on to half of Austria until 1955-Czecholovakia had between 1946-48 a democratically elected govt which was overthrown by the Communists in 1948 internally.
Similarly talk of the Communists taking over or wanting to do so in western Europe between 1945 -53 -with the exception already cited of Berlin 1948-is nonsense too.
After 1945 he Italian Communist Party of Palmiro Togaletti and the several millions strong French Communist parties of Leon Thorez were under strict orders from Moscow not to promote internal revolutions because Comrade Stalin wanted to rebuild the devastated Soviet Union Stalin didn't want another war so soon post -1945.
The Berlin and Czech incidents in 1948 however were counterproductive to the Soviets as they excited and encouraged fears to the contrary in the West and USA.
Togaletti and Thorez -as slavishly obedient minions of Stalin- ensured that no internal Communist threat of takover REALLY existed in their homelands during most of the Cold War although the threat of what might happen was useful to them-and their Soviet masters.
The Marshall Plan also helped considerably dissuade western European govts and people being too sympathetic to the Soviets and Stalin.

USMC

It seems like these days, that is the days after the Cold War, the sides are not so defined. Before the economic fall of the Soviets and the "official" end of the Cold War, it was easy to define peoples as Communist and Capitalist. A country was either Warsaw Pact or NATO. It seems to me there is a global push, if I may call it that, towards a soft form of Communism that is nothing more than economic Socialism. Control of the "purse strings" from cradle to grave. I feel that this is, in a strange way, more troublesome than the Cold War was. At least during the Cold War it was easier to tell who was who, for me personally anyway.

Black Dog

There is, of course, the theory that the USA used the Soviet bloc as an excuse to show off its muscle and extend its influence throughout the (non-Communist) world by building bases everywhere to "protect" us against Soviet or Chinese communist aggression.

Certainly, the fall of the British and other European empires meant that America was the main beneficiary.

Toomtabard

USMC In Indiana-maybe troublesome to many American people including yourself but not in Western Europe where welfare state Social Democracy is the norm and widely supported.
That guy just adopted by Mr Romney as his Vice Presidential rnning mate from Wisconsin(Mr Ryan) wouldn't get elected t any level in my country -Scotland-even to a local parish council. And also he wouldn't be elected in many European countries either because of his attacks on social welfare.
Also right now in Great Britain, capitalist bankers are as about popular as your Hoosier state's most famous outlaw son, Johnny Dillinger, was with 1920's/30's Indiana savings bank stockholders.
These reckless and ruthless latter day Dillinger banker guys worry us a whole lot more than Social Democratic welfare orientated tax-and -spend govts do.
Different strokes for different folks-USMC.