Thread: About Cold War and more

I remember from that era, having a huge fight with my best friend about how many times over the whole world could be destroyed by the existing nuclear arsenal. It was like 8 times, I believed, but she said 18, or something like that... Somebody came to school to lecture about this.

There were a number of really creepy books about a post nuclear war society which perhaps some remember? One that I remember one was about animals that lived in a Russian town after all the people had died in a nuclear war. The animals tried to understand what happened, and in the process made some wise observations about the madness of an arms race. Anyone remembers that book?

One of the things that was often said was that any nuclear war was most likely going to be started by a misunderstanding or mistake -- neither super power would deliberatly start a nuclear war.
There was apparently an incident where the USA almost fired off the nukes because a flock of birds were flying from Siberia towards Alaska and appeared on the radar like missiles!

It was a big thing where I grew up, to believe in "neutrality", that the superpowers were generally crazy and greedy for land and assets.

In the neighbourhood I grew up, another thing was whether to join, the scouts or the pioneers. My best friend was in the pioneers, and in addition they had a really varied program of activities. I wanted to join but was not allowed by my parents and had to be in the sea scouts instead, which I did not enjoy. I don't think the pioneer organisation exists in Sweden anymore

Remember another school lecture about why Sweden needed a defense, and compulsory military service for the guys (now stopped). Kids said "What's the point - the Russians/Americans could invade us any time they wanted, we wouldn't stand a chance...".

The idea was that the Northern part of Scandinavia was incredibly strategically important for some complicated reason that I totally missed. So, supposedly either super power might come up with the idea to invade, "liberate", forcibly send a bunch of "advisors" and insist on a military base there, or something like that. However, our guys on skis with white anoraks could prevent this due to superior training, local knowledge etc....I did not buy it.... Sweden has not had any spine at all militarily for the last few hundred years, and would probably have surrendered long before anyone actually died in a hypothetical invasion! This is evidenced for exampled by our behaviour during both WW2, and what happened at the end of the Cold War - Senior politicians and other leaders changing the politics and alliances like others change socks.

I wonder how many times over the world could still be destroyed by the existing nuclear arsenal, and whether it matters?
No idea!

Nowadays I am more concerned about Environmental matters, and it is still nice to think that the military tension and scary border controls are gone from the European continent.

But talk of this played a huge part of my childhood, as it probably did for everyone over the age of 35.

Super creepy book from my childhood - some kids get cancer and starve to death after a nuclear war..."The Last Children"
I read this book several times in my childhood.

Originally Posted by Hanna

There was apparently an incident where the USA almost fired off the nukes because a flock of birds were flying from Siberia towards Alaska and appeared on the radar like missiles!

It was a little bit more dramatic in USSR one day
Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Hanna

There were a number of really creepy books about a post nuclear war society which perhaps some remember? One that I remember one was about animals that lived in a Russian town after all the people had died in a nuclear war. The animals tried to understand what happened, and in the process made some wise observations about the madness of an arms race. Anyone remembers that book?

This? But it's about US town

Results of using Duck and Cover

An U.S. Air Force Convair F-106A Delta Dart (s/n 57-2494) of the 102nd Fighter Interceptor Wing of the Massachusetts Air National Guard based at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts (USA), intercepting a Soviet Tu-95 Bear D bomber aircraft off Cape Cod on 15 April 1982.

Used to see this in the local newspaper every year or so. Soviet Bears would fly to Cuba and the local Air National Guard would go out and say "Hi guys!".

Note the "Cape Cod" on the fighter's fuel tank.

The Soviet Union never threatened the US. Its people did not have negative feelings towards America and Americans (there was a neg. feeling during and after the war because were thought to do nothing and use the Soviet Union to achieve the victory). That was the biggest lie propagated by the US. The history showed that even Soviet leaders were not antiamericanists.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The Soviet Union never threatened the US.

That's true, it has never threatened the US explicitly, but it had said and done enough to show it wants the US to join the Family of the Brother Nations just like any other country.

"Со дня победы пролетарской революции в России вся история человечества наполнена непримиримой борьбой двух миров. [...] Трудящиеся массы капиталистических стран, и в первую очередь рабочий класс, все больше проникаются сознанием, что освобождения от гнета нищеты и безработицы можно добиться только идя по тому пути, который указал рабочий класс Советского Союза. [...] Ленинизм учит, что, пока существует капиталистическое окружение нашей страны, существует опасность интервенции, а следовательно, реставрации капитализма. [...] «...Ошибочно было бы думать, что сфера классовой борьбы ограничена пределами СССР. Если один конец классовой борьбы имеет свое действие в рамках СССР, то другой ее конец протягивается в пределы окружающих нас буржуазных государств. Об этом не могут не знать остатки разбитых классов. И именно потому, что они об этом знают, они будут и впредь продолжать свои отчаянные вылазки.

Так учит нас история. Так учит нас ленинизм.

Необходимо помнить все это и быть начеку»" (ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕ)

Originally Posted by Marcus

Its people did not have negative feelings towards America and Americans (there was a neg. feeling during and after the war because were thought to do nothing and use the Soviet Union to achieve the victory).

During and after the war (I guess you mean the WWII) there was a great deal of friendship between the USSR and the US. Have you ever heard about the lend-lease that helped a lot for the Soviet Union to survive especially through the first toughest years of the war? Have you ever heard a song "На честном слове и на одном крыле" http://vilavi.ru/prot/150307/media/ut_rus.mp3 ? That was very popular in the Soviet Union by the end of the war and in the year of victory and right after the war. It is only years after the WWII ended, during the Cold War that the US was perceived as a "possible enemy" (страна вероятного противника).

That's true there weren't too much of the anti-american feelings, but more or less anti-capitalist feelings which meant the US had to be liberated just like any other capitalist country. All capitalist countries were the target. There was no need to single out the US. If you want to kill a dangerous bull, it's not that wise to tease it, you'd rather pat it first.

If Nulle is the biggest Latvian nationalist on the forum (not much competition) then I think Marcus is the biggest Russian nationalist on the forum!!

PS - what happened to the smiley with the red flag? That would have been more appropriate....

Anyway, I think everybody here is doing a great job of representing Russia to people from other countries, and also explaining the USSR and the Cold War from your perspective.

It's interesting to hear that you don't see Russia as being dominating in the USSR. Most other people thought so.
What about stars in the USSR ice hockey team, were they mostly Russian or other nationalities?
I remember from this time that people said, "blah, blah, blah Russians...." and teachers said "don't say Russians, say Soviets". It never really caught on though!

I have no idea what it was like with possible Russian domination of the USSR, and no opinion on it -- but I remember often seeing programs on TV with people with really elegant national costumes from different parts of the USSR - I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that the different nationalities were something that was celebrated in the USSR, in culture at least.
Plus, several of the Soviet leaders were from other Soviet republics than Russia, as far as I am aware. I guess that wouldn't have been the case if Russia totally dominated.

One thing that seems strange though, is that USSR apparently marked in people's passport who was Jewish (why??!) and that Jews were sometimes discriminated against (?) to the extent that many got fed up and tried to emigrate. But on the other hand... tons of really famous people from the Soviet era were Jewish, so it can't have been extreme. Don't know what the truth about this is - does anyone have a view on it?

Originally Posted by Hanna

If Nulle is the biggest Latvian nationalist on the forum (not much competition) then I think Marcus is the biggest Russian nationalist on the forum!!

PS - what happened to the smiley with the red flag? That would have been more appropriate....

Anyway, I think everybody here is doing a great job of representing Russia to people from other countries, and also explaining the USSR and the Cold War from your perspective.

It's interesting to hear that you don't see Russia as being dominating in the USSR. Most other people thought so.
What about stars in the USSR ice hockey team, were they mostly Russian or other nationalities?
I remember from this time that people said, "blah, blah, blah Russians...." and teachers said "don't say Russians, say Soviets". It never really caught on though!

I have no idea what it was like with possible Russian domination of the USSR, and no opinion on it -- but I remember often seeing programs on TV with people with really elegant national costumes from different parts of the USSR - I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that the different nationalities were something that was celebrated in the USSR, in culture at least.
Plus, several of the Soviet leaders were from other Soviet republics than Russia, as far as I am aware. I guess that wouldn't have been the case if Russia totally dominated.

One thing that seems strange though, is that USSR apparently marked in people's passport who was Jewish (why??!) and that Jews were sometimes discriminated against (?) to the extent that many got fed up and tried to emigrate. But on the other hand... tons of really famous people from the Soviet era were Jewish, so it can't have been extreme. Don't know what the truth about this is - does anyone have a view on it?

Stalin was a Georgian (Svan I think in fact) and spoke with a noticible foreign accent. There were many others of course. The only real advantage of Russians was the language, the Russian language unofficially became the state language and the lingua franca.
The ethnicity was marked anyway, now it is not. Why? I have always wondered. Jews had very high positions in the first decades of the Soviet power. But the tensions arose between them and Stalin, because of their support of Israel which appeared to be anti-Soviet despite the USSR helped it a lot.
Many people wanted to emigrate, many Jews thought their motherland was Israel. Jews were allowed to emigrate after the war and in the 70ths. Others did not usually get this opportunity.
Jews were never oppressed, they still occupied high positions in culture, science, but they were gradually excluded from the government, Party lidership, high army command and the special services. It is worth saying that they occupied a very large part of posts in Soviet ministries, Party, army and special services before the end of the 1930s. The Soviet Union enjoyed the support of Jews throughout the world but was called Jewish state by the white, Hitler and other enemies.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's interesting to hear that you don't see Russia as being dominating in the USSR. Most other people thought so.
What about stars in the USSR ice hockey team, were they mostly Russian or other nationalities?

There were no Russian domination in sport, if we talk about sport in general. If you google "Soviet (Olympic) champions", you'll see people of different ethnicities. Sometimes certain sports were dominated by people from certain republics (that probably depended on what sports were popular there due to cultural differences or climate). For example, wrestling champions were almost exclusively machos from Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ossetia, etc. Ukrainians succeed in soccer, Russians in hockey, and so on.

I remember from this time that people said, "blah, blah, blah Russians...." and teachers said "don't say Russians, say Soviets". It never really caught on though!

Your teachers were smart.
The USSR was a union of 15 ethnic republics, people of various backgrounds all mixed together. For example, in my school class we had loads of kids of mixed ethnicities, who were proud of their "ethnic" last names (Georgian/Armenian/Uzbeck/Arab/Korean/Karaim/Latvian and some others).

One thing that seems strange though, is that USSR apparently marked in people's passport who was Jewish (why??!)

Absolutely everyone had their ethnicities marked in passports, along with name, address and some other info. Jews were no different.
If a child was of mixed ethnicity, parents could choose which ethnicity they prefer to "transfer" to their kid.

Originally Posted by Hanna

If Nulle is the biggest Latvian nationalist on the forum (not much competition) then I think Marcus is the biggest Russian nationalist on the forum!!

PS - what happened to the smiley with the red flag? That would have been more appropriate....

The smiley with a rose always suits well. So, you congratulate me as a winner? Thank you!

Идеи мировой революции были отброшены Сталиным еще в 1929 г. Остальное было болтовней.
Во время войны сами западные дипломаты и журналисты отмечали недовольство советских людей недостаточной активностью западных стран, хотя американская помощь была всякакя и дружба тоже была.
Ненависти к капитализму в СССР не было вообще (было неприязненное отношение к спекулянтам, но не к Западу). Советские люди считали, что они живут в говне, что на Западе текут молочные реки с кисельными берегами, хватались за все западное вне зависимости от нужности и качества и считали, что все это можно устроить у нас, если ввести рыночную экономику, демократию и подчиниться Западу. Именно поэтому перестройка и распад Союза прошли так замечательно. Своим СМИ советские люди не верили, а часто верили наоборот.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Идеи мировой революции были отброшены Сталиным еще в 1929 г. Остальное было болтовней.

Yes, Stalin said that and even documented that. But, remember the bull? Why had Stalin established the communist regimes in the Eastern Europe? Wasn't it according to the idea of shrinking the "capitalistic circle"? What was the blah-blah and what was actually happening? In your earlier post you mentioned the Cuban Crisis, but what had preceded that? Do you remember the emigration through Berlin and the subsequent Berlin Crisis? The two systems cannot co-exist. The war which would shrink/eliminate the capitalistic circle was inevitable. That was bound to happen regardless of the peaceful rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Во время войны сами западные дипломаты и журналисты отмечали недовольство советских людей недостаточной активностью западных стран, хотя американская помощь была всякакя и дружба тоже была.

Ok, so the WWII started in the 1939. The UK and France fought with Germany. During that time the soviet people weren't that active to help the western countries. Strange, right?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Ненависти к капитализму в СССР не было вообще (было неприязненное отношение к спекулянтам, но не к Западу). Советские люди считали, что они живут в говне, что на Западе текут молочные реки с кисельными берегами, хватались за все западное

By the 80s, yes.

Originally Posted by Marcus

вне зависимости от нужности и качества

I disagree. Women spent their entire month salary to get the Italian shoes and were wearing it for a decade. Usually, those who visited the west imported European or Japanese goods. Except for the jeans which were fake most of the time, unless being brought by the americans who visited the USSR. Those real jeans used to cost a lot as well.

Originally Posted by Marcus

и считали, что все это можно устроить у нас, если ввести рыночную экономику

Yes, many believed that.

Originally Posted by Marcus

, демократию и подчиниться Западу.

That is a political demagogy. The people wanted to learn how the West does it, hence the impression of "the western is good". That was only true in the early 90s.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Именно поэтому перестройка и распад Союза прошли так замечательно.

I think you're mixing up things here. I don't think those who started the "remodeling" have planned for the disintegration of the USSR. Also, people in general liked the idea of the USSR and disliked the nationalist sentiments of the late 80s which ultimately caused the disintegration. The whole thing was though to be more like the New Economic policy of the past, something that could revive the economics and make people more involved and interested. I'm not really sure that was a bad idea, it could work.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Своим СМИ советские люди не верили, а часто верили наоборот.

Why do you think that happened? Was there a reason, or people just went crazy altogether?

Wasn't it according to the idea of shrinking the "capitalistic circle"? What was the blah-blah and what was actually happening? In your earlier post you mentioned the Cuban Crisis, but what had preceded that? Do you remember the emigration through Berlin and the subsequent Berlin Crisis? The two systems cannot co-exist. The war which would shrink/eliminate the capitalistic circle was inevitable. That was bound to happen regardless of the peaceful rhetoric.

Капитализм и социализм здесь по большому счету ни при чем. Это борьба двух сверхдержав, и все.

Ok, so the WWII started in the 1939. The UK and France fought with Germany. During that time the soviet people weren't that active to help the western countries. Strange, right?

Какая разница? Советским людям во время войны было наплевать на начало Второй мировой, их это не касалось. К тому же Советский Союз и не говорил, что он будет помогать Франции и Англии сражаться с Германией.

I think you're mixing up things here. I don't think those who started the "remodeling" have planned for the disintegration of the USSR. Also, people in general liked the idea of the USSR and disliked the nationalist sentiments of the late 80s which ultimately caused the disintegration. The whole thing was though to be more like the New Economic policy of the past, something that could revive the economics and make people more involved and interested. I'm not really sure that was a bad idea, it could work.

Нет, именно это они и планировали. Я долго думал на эту тему и пришел к однозначному выводу: Горбачев - предатель, сознательно ведший страну к гибели.

Why do you think that happened? Was there a reason, or people just went crazy altogether?

Это идеологическое поражение сов. власти. Неэффективность пропаганды.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Капитализм и социализм здесь по большому счету ни при чем. Это борьба двух сверхдержав, и все.

What do you think about the Berlin Crisis? People were fleeing from the Eastern side to the Western side. Was it because of the effective propaganda?
You see, I agree with your point that the struggle of the two superpower had taken place. However, what I disagree is that the struggle had no previous history.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Какая разница? Советским людям во время войны было наплевать на начало Второй мировой, их это не касалось.

Not quite so. Do you remember that the WWII officially started with Germany invaded Poland? Ok, so the USSR had joined the WWII two weeks after that, remember? Then there was the war of 1940 with Finland. So, the soviet people weren't oblivious about the WWII. So, why the "westerners" weren't so eager to help the USSR, like they allegedly should? Because they are just too evil? What do you say? Even the extension of the lend-lease to the USSR was disputed by many.

Originally Posted by Marcus

К тому же Советский Союз и не говорил, что он будет помогать Франции и Англии сражаться с Германией.

Exactly. Because in 1939 it helped Germany to fight Poland. So, could you blame France and the UK for not being too active helping the USSR? I think they simply did not know what to do with the USSR. Ideally, from their point of view, the USSR and Germany would weaken each other and thus be of the lesser future threat. Can you really blame them?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Нет, именно это они и планировали. Я долго думал на эту тему и пришел к однозначному выводу: Горбачев - предатель, сознательно ведший страну к гибели.

Ok, so let's assume you're right. So, what motivation did he have? And what did he win as a result of disintegration of the USSR? He was a Secretary General of the USSR. One of the wealthiest and mightiest people in the world. He had everything. Then, with a disintegration of the USSR he became just a person. What was his interest?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Это идеологическое поражение сов. власти. Неэффективность пропаганды.

I would respectfully disagree. The propaganda was very effective. I'm not sure how old are you, but if I ask you a couple of the Soviet propaganda keywords you will remember right away. "Израильская военщина провела очередную карательную операцию?" "Самосовские головорезы?" "Фидель Кастро посетил Советский Союз с очередным дружественным визитом?" Does it ring the bells? Do you remember anything from the BBC in those days? And those who could really listen to the "Radio of Freedom" were really a minority. I couldn't. Were your parents able to catch the BBC programs if they wanted? Whose parents on this forum could listen to the BBC? Or were listening to the BBC? So, the Soviet propaganda was working hard and the western propaganda wasn't really getting to its audience. However, by the 80s people were experienced enough not to believe anything that comes from the government. Any idea why? Do you think people just were stupid?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would respectfully disagree. The propaganda was very effective. I'm not sure how old are you, but if I ask you a couple of the Soviet propaganda keywords you will remember right away. "Израильская военщина провела очередную карательную операцию?" "Самосовские головорезы?" "Фидель Кастро посетил Советский Союз с очередным дружественным визитом?"

Ok, but if the Soviet propaganda was so good, how come it did not work on you Crocodile? You were never really with the programme, and left when you could.... And if the propaganda was effective, then why did the USSR disintigrate? If people had believed it, then they would have thought "whatever the problems here, it is still better than imperialism & capitalism...." Instead they thought "where can I buy a pair of Levis'...." (Btw, commercial messages is a form of propaganda too!)

One thing that I like about the approach of communist countries to propaganda, is that they call it what it was. I.e. as far as I am aware, communism actually calls propaganda by its right name and admits that it is doing that, agitation etc. If you see a red banner with a slogan, you know what it is, right - and you can choose to think "Bullshit".

The creepy propaganda is that which you are not aware that you have been subjected to.
Assumptions which you just have, but you can't really explain why, where they come from.

I mean, there have been some serious American propaganda victims here, haven't there? People with horrendous prejudice and poorly informed views on Russia, the USSR or something else.
Then somebody tries to talk some sense to them and they get really agitated!
And it is obvious that these people have their heads full of crappy Hollywood action/spy dramas, or Fox News reports on Russia.

Are there really people in Russia with such a poorly informed and prejudiced views on the USA? I don't think so, although I don't for sure.

I honestly think US is much better at propaganda than the USSR was... With all their patriotic films, horrible portrayls of their "enemies" in films and the News.. Making kids learn storybook style anecdotes about American historical figures, "founding fathers" loyalty pledges every day in school, and singing of national anthem with much drama. I don't think the USSR quite matched their level and scale of patriotic and ideological indoctrination!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I honestly think US is much better at propaganda than the USSR was... With all their patriotic films, horrible portrayls of their "enemies" in films and the News.. Making kids learn storybook style anecdotes about American historical figures, "founding fathers" loyalty pledges every day in school, and singing of national anthem with much drama. I don't think the USSR quite matched their level and scale of patriotic and ideological indoctrination!

We had our founding father - Lenin. References to Lenin were ubiquitous - from ABC-books to forewords in technical volumes.
There are some very good songs about him. This one, for example (1974):



It's so spirited that you just jump to your feet and start singing along

PS: It's hard to comprehend how USSR happened to dissolve 17 years after the creation of this hit.

Originally Posted by Hanna

.. Making kids learn storybook style anecdotes about American historical figures, "founding fathers" loyalty pledges every day in school, and singing of national anthem with much drama. I don't think the USSR quite matched their level and scale of patriotic and ideological indoctrination!

Hanna... you've been down this path before We are not the only place that says a pledge or sings anthems. Believe me, it is more of a tradition than being patriotic. Young boys (and girls) today, they don't even take off their hats, EVEN when reminded to before hand by the Principal. Some of the kids don't even bother to take out their earbuds or put away their cell phones... let alone stand.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Hanna... you've been down this path before We are not the only place that says a pledge or sings anthems. Believe me, it is more of a tradition than being patriotic. Young boys (and girls) today, they don't even take off their hats, EVEN when reminded to before hand by the Principal. Some of the kids don't even bother to take out their earbuds or put away their cell phones... let alone stand.

Haha, I am a broken record. Oh well! And I agree with you , discipline in school is probably an issue in most countries...

But America has a great deal more patriotism than countries in Europe, I can absolutely promise you that. So from my perspective the USA is quite extreme.

There is next to no patriotic stuff AT ALL anywhere in Europe. Once or twice a year you sing the national anthem in school - there is no loyalty pledge and no glorification of heroic history like there is in the USA. There are no old time kings or others that are glorified really - all of the old time heroes were involved in activities that are unacceptable now, or politically incorrect. There is the terrible legacy of devastating wars, guilt from colonialism, persecution of minorities and terrorism by separatist states. All that has put people off nationalism and patriotism. The only exceptions are the "new" countries in Eastern Europe, that have some kind of point to prove.

So looked at it from our perspective, the nationalism of the USA is pretty extreme, with 4th of July, daily pledges in school, famous anectotes about leaders. There is endless talk about supposedly "American values" that are all about "freedom" and things like that. Sounds good, but for whom, how and at what price?

I think it's pretty much comparable in intensity with the USSR which had parades, loyalty pledges, idolizing Lenin and talk about idealistic utopian ideas which they did not quite live up to... Just a different flavour of propaganda.

I have seen young pioneer reciting some kind of pledge, on TV - guessing that must have been compulsory, so an equivalent to what Americans do. Not sure whether Russia today does anything like that.. I would guess, probably not.

Joke video about American Pledge of Allegiance in school! Funny!!!



I don't dislike patriotism at all, it can be a really nice thing.
As long as every country keeps their patriotic and nationalistic stuff within their own borders and don't use it to justify starting wars or invasions!

If the USSR had been the winner of the Cold War and was violently pushing their agenda while being hypocritical about their ideology then I would have just as much an issue with that.

Yes, I think Soviet union and Soviets were the politically correct expressions.
I guess some people thought of themselves as "Soviets", but perhaps not all?
Perhaps it would depend on how much they moved around, or their background.

I have some relatives who are Estonian, but they lived in Leningrad in the 1980s. Now they are scattered all over. Somebody in that family told my sister that they felt they did not belong anywhere after the dissolving of the USSR. The problem was that although they were Estonians (of Swedish origin), they had grown up in Leningrad. But then after the USSR finished, they did not want to stay there, because the situation was bad and suddenly they did not belong. But then they felt strange being in Estonia and had problems fitting in there (not too sure of the details). So all the children apart from one promptly emigrated! I am not in touch with them - I don't know them very well and always had some communication problems (no language in common).

Another example is the collegue I mention a few weeks ago. People keep thinking that he is Russian because he has a Russian name. But that pisses him off and he is apparently a Ukrainan - Estonian Jew! And he doesn't like Russia much. Both his parents were Soviet defectors who simply sneaked off while on trips to Sweden, and managed to get political asylum. (But life in Sweden did not work out very well for them, from what I would guess. He grew up in a bad area. It doesn't seem like he had a very good childhood. Sad! )
But the situation gets tricky for him when he wants to explain his origins, which could probably be summarised as "Soviet". Poor chap doesn't even have a proper native tongue from his childhood, although his parents spoke Russian with each other until they divorced.