When is a war not a war?

[uk 75]

Younger members will groan at yet another of my Cold War memory threads. But I think it worth examining why between 1945 and 1991 we all knew where we were.
It was a clear aspect of the Cold War that neither side would help a third country to attack the territory of the other.
Neither China nor the Soviet Union ever gave N Vietnam or N Korea the means to attack US bases outside S Vietnam or S Korea.
Any threat to US or Soviet resupplying of their sides in the Arab Israel wars would soon bring high level efforts to avoid conflict.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the West was careful to supply only those weapons which could be used in-country against the occupying Soviet forces.
Fast forward to the early 1990s. First in the Gulf and then in Yugoslavia the West is no longer restrained by Russia in striking at regimes which it could not have done prior to 1991.
All of which brings us to the Ukraine crisis. Had the Soviet Union invaded Finland or Yugoslavia (the only pre 1991 parallel I can think of) Western weapons might have been sent in response but the sending of US or NATO forces or the supply of NATO kit which could attack Warsaw Pact territory would have been seen as the start of a general war.
So we are now in a place almost unthinkable until 1991.
It is hard to imagine Kruschev or Breshnev starting such a war still less having to rely on non Soviet arms supplies but equally any use of NATO weapons against Soviet territory would have opened the abyss.

 

[Dilandu]

True. The collapse of bipolar system and three decades of almost unquestioned American hegemony caused the international political system to deteriorate. The normal XX century diplomacy of mutually beneficial (or mutually constraining) deals and compromises was replaced by a sort-of "zero-sum game" diplomacy, in which one side must always lose so the other may declare victory. And ironically, ideological differences and polarizatiin started to play much greater role in politics than during Cold War - despite all opponents being much less different from each other than Socialist and Capitalist camps were.

 

[martinbayer]

Seriously? War is a truly binary, clearly evident event, simple as that. War implies *systematic* use of kinetic weaponry and associated killing, maiming, and destruction of property. In other words, there never was a cold war, only ideological mind games - gee, I really wish native English speaking people would actually finally master to comprehend their own language! But I understand that the native speakers on this forum would hesitate to trust a German to explain their own language to them, so here goes: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war. Happy now?

 

[uk 75]

I think you'll find that the Cold War was a very real war for all those involved in the numerous conflicts which took place from the Greek Civil War to the Iran Iraq between forces supported by both the Soviet Union and the US. Furthermore thanks to strategic nuclear weapons both Americans and Russians lived a few hours from mutual destruction and death.
There is no better image for this than photos of Red Army T54s and US Berlin Brigade M48s facing each other down at Checkpoint Charlie in 1961.

 

[Arjen]

As Oscar Wilde said 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple'. Most, if not all of the words we use are shorthand for the things they refer to. Reality, even in the limited way we are able to perceive it, often doesn't fit the words we use to describe it. On occasion, that reduces a description to us beating about the bush, to get as close to communicate our understanding of reality to others.

In 1984, George Orwell demonstrated the ways in which authorities could manipulate perception of reality, and ultimately reality itself, by stripping the word equality from its political connotations.

I usually recognise war, I usually recognise rivalry. Where one morphs into the other - I sometimes find difficult to pin down. Beware of being bogged down in semantics. Describe what you perceive as honest as you can, even if that means describing it in a roundabout way. Use new words?

Reality is complicated.

 

[BlackBat242]

Seriously? War is a truly binary, clearly evident event, simple as that. War implies *systematic* use of kinetic weaponry and associated killing, maiming, and destruction of property. In other words, there never was a cold war, only ideological mind games - gee, I really wish native English speaking people would actually finally master to comprehend their own language! But I understand that the native speakers on this forum would hesitate to trust a German to explain their own language to them, so here goes: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war. Happy now?

The term "Cold War" was coined to describe the state of political rivalry involving "proxy wars" and the like - and to differentiate it from a "hot War" where the superpowers were shooting directly at each other full-force (possibly including nuclear weapons).

The meanings and differences were well-known and understood for those of us who lived through those times.

For my personal example - I was 3 months old as my Mother cradled me in her arms while listening to radio coverage of the Cuban Missile Crisis, wondering if things would turn "hot' and convert our relatively safe world into a nuclear hell-hole.

I grew up in schools with the rooms in the basements etc designated as "fallout shelters", constantly stocked with food etc from government suppliers, and with "duck & cover" drills.

In 1981 I enlisted in the USMC, and spent the next 8 years making sure our aircraft could fly their combat missions if we started directly fighting the USSR.

I had served 8 years on active duty and returned to the civilian world just a few months earlier when the political collapse of the Warsaw Pact saw the opening of the borders, and a sudden and unexpected sense of "wow, the world may have a good future after all" came to us all.

Yes, the terms "Cold War" and "Hot War" had very real and distinct meanings for us... no matter what your outsider's parsing of the dictionary meanings would indicate.

 

[martinbayer]

I think you'll find that the Cold War was a very real war for all those involved in the numerous conflicts which took place from the Greek Civil War to the Iran Iraq between forces supported by both the Soviet Union and the US. Furthermore thanks to strategic nuclear weapons both Americans and Russians lived a few hours from mutual destruction and death.
There is no better image for this than photos of Red Army T54s and US Berlin Brigade M48s facing each other down at Checkpoint Charlie in 1961.

I do not see any of those backwater/third world skirmishes relevant to the hard core binary Cold War. Mind you, I remember air raid siren drills during school in Germany, but mere drills they were, not actual reality. And Checkpoint Charlie never went beyond mere posturing.

 

[martinbayer]

As Oscar Wilde said 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple'. Most, if not all of the words we use are shorthand for the things they refer to. Reality, even in the limited way we are able to perceive it, often doesn't fit the words we use to describe it. On occasion, that reduces a description to us beating about the bush, to get as close to communicate our understanding of reality to others.

In 1984, George Orwell demonstrated the ways in which authorities could manipulate perception of reality, and ultimately reality itself, by stripping the word equality from its political connotations.

I usually recognise war, I usually recognise rivalry. Where one morphs into the other - I sometimes find difficult to pin down. Beware of being bogged down in semantics. Describe what you perceive as honest as you can, even if that means describing it in a roundabout way. Use new words?

Reality is complicated.

As an engineer, I start looking at events as being a war when there are two sides mutually engaging in hostilities by systematically using kinetic means of destruction. That is a very clear and simple threshold.

 

[martinbayer]

The term "Cold War" was coined to describe the state of political rivalry involving "proxy wars" and the like - and to differentiate it from a "hot War" where the superpowers were shooting directly at each other full-force (possibly including nuclear weapons).

The meanings and differences were well-known and understood for those of us who lived through those times.

For my personal example - I was 3 months old as my Mother cradled me in her arms while listening to radio coverage of the Cuban Missile Crisis, wondering if things would turn "hot' and convert our relatively safe world into a nuclear hell-hole.

I grew up in schools with the rooms in the basements etc designated as "fallout shelters", constantly stocked with food etc from government suppliers, and with "duck & cover" drills.

In 1981 I enlisted in the USMC, and spent the next 8 years making sure our aircraft could fly their combat missions if we started directly fighting the USSR.

I had served 8 years on active duty and returned to the civilian world just a few months earlier when the political collapse of the Warsaw Pact saw the opening of the borders, and a sudden and unexpected sense of "wow, the world may have a good future after all" came to us all.

Yes, the terms "Cold War" and "Hot War" had very real and distinct meanings for us... no matter what your outsider's parsing of the dictionary meanings would indicate.

And yet, during that period, the Soviet Union never physically attacked the US, nor vice versa. As a German citizen born in 1961, I take *extreme* umbrage at you characterizing me as an "outsider" - I literally lived near one of your imaginary front lines (does Fulda Gap ring a bell?), with regular air raid siren drills during my school career. But I'll leave you to your miles gloriosus swagger...

 

[southwestforests]

But I understand that the native speakers on this forum would hesitate to trust a German to explain their own language to them,

That brings to mind a thing about dictionaries which a lot of people do not understand, and a thing about the English Language that a lot of people do not understand and/or do understand but refuse to deal with as a long documented reality of the English Language.

First thing people misunderstand about dictionaries is that the dictionary does not create and ordain the approved meaning and usage of a word,
it merely records what language speakers are doing with the word at the timie the dictionary was compiled and published,

For instance,

How to Use the Dictionary

Take it from the people who know.

www.merriam-webster.com

It may seem a bit silly that we need to have an entire section defining what the definitions are, but many people appear to have some awkward ideas about how words are defined (both in terms of what this means and what it doesn’t mean). Here are some points for your edification:

If we define a word it does not mean that we have approved or sanctioned it. The role of the dictionary is to record use of a language, not to regulate it.

Second thing is, you know that saying "change is the only constant"?
That is this English language in a nutshell.
Word usages and even pronunciations evolve, every moment of every day.
Most efficient thing I can say beyond that is, read this,
(and I VERY MUCH recommend reading it)
(and McWhorter's other books too)

Language is always changing, but the way English is spoken today rubs many of us the wrong way. Whether it’s the use of literally to mean “figuratively,” or the way young people use LOL or business jargon like What’s the ask?—it often seems as if the language is deteriorating before our eyes.

But the truth is different and a lot less scary. Drawing examples from everyday life and employing a generous helping of humor, John McWhorter shows that these shifts are common to all languages, and that we should embrace these changes, not condemn them.

He opens our eyes to the surprising backstories to words and expressions we use every day. Did you know that silly once meant “blessed”? Or that ought was the original past tense of owe? Or that the suffix -ly in adverbs is actually a remnant of the word like?

In Words on the Move, McWhorter encourages us to marvel at the dynamism and resilience of the English language, and his book offers a delightful journey where we see that words are ever on the move and our lives are all the richer for it.

Quote is from book publisher page at,

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250143785/wordsonthemove

Here is a classic example of how English word usage and meaning morph over time,

prevent | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

early 15c., preventen, "act in anticipation of, act sooner or more quickly than (another)," from Latin praeventus, past participle of praevenire "come before, anticipate, hinder," in Late Latin also "to prevent," from prae "before" (see pre-) + venire "to come" (from a suffixed form of PIE root *gwa- "to go, come").

Originally in the literal classical meaning. The meaning "keep from existing or occurring" is by 1540s; the sense of "anticipate to hinder, hinder from action by opposition of obstacles" was in Latin but is not recorded in English until 1660s.

 

[martinbayer]

Second thing is, you know that saying "change is the only constant"?
That is this English language in a nutshell.
Word usages and even pronunciations evolve, every moment of every day.

Newsflash - the very same thing is also true for German, and I'd wager a sizeable bet for any other language on this planet as well...

 

[uk 75]

I do not see any of those backwater/third world skirmishes relevant to the hard core binary Cold War. Mind you, I remember air raid siren drills during school in Germany, but mere drills they were, not actual reality. And Checkpoint Charlie never went beyond mere posturing.

As an arts grad. (Modern History) I am not going to force an argument with a German engineer about precision. In colloquial English the word "war" is indeed used incorrectly as in "the war between the two neighbours over the garden hedge continued for many years". Sadly we English mangle our language with gay abandon hence Brexit similar to Cold War a clumsyshorthand for a dramatic event.

 

[Arjen]

Just getting the facts right will sometimes cause you to miss essential information. Precision can be imaginary.
From Tim Burton's Big Fish

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/11e6c1e1-77c3-4127-8d7f-8e876e07c24e

As a lapsed biologist, I am quite familiar with life being difficult to catch in mere words.

 

[Arjen]

I am grateful so many points of view are presented though. Without bashing of heads.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I was a child of the sixties, only being around for a little over two years of the fifties and I doubt any of this meant a single sneeze then.

I had my fifth birthday the day after a certain President was murdered in Dallas so little of the Cuban missile crisis or the bay of pigs got through either.

In school, we had zero involvement in exercises or rooms designated as shelters either, none of that got through so I suppose there was a certain amunt of disinterest in saving a great many of the sheeples at the time.

Essentially, I skipped the cold war. My military service ended in the mid eighties and frankly, the only emphasis there was in being able to bug out in case of a Warsaw pact bout of heavy sneezing all over the NATO geo political border.

About the only thing I can remember in the way of propoganda was the study which suggested a Chieftain tank would last something like 39 seconds once contact was made. I know, very inspiring.

The fall of the wall? A bit of a damp squib imho. No doubbt it meant much more to the German people but for me it was a case of politicians talking a lot while saying nothing with any gravitas.

It seems to me that all the angst in the world is caused by self centred, egocentric LITTLE people who need to throw their weight around to mean anything. A thoroughly disgustin way to live a life. It takes as much energy to be decent as it takes to be a parentless individual so what is the motivation?

The same sort of motivation that leads to doctors ignoring nhs patients to make more money for the partners in the end of the year bonus scheme, imho, of course.

 

[Arjen]

And yet, during that period, the Soviet Union never physically attacked the US, nor vice versa.

In other parts of the world, the rivalry caused violent death. War was reality there.

We got close to disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

 

[martinbayer]

In other parts of the world, the rivalry caused violent death. War was reality there.

We got close to disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

It's one of those countless houses that didn't burn down.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion there are three types of war:

-Hot war. When our way of life is directly threatened.

-Cold war. When the threat does not directly affect our country and no one wants to enter the bear cave.

-Stupid war. Like the one being done by the Brussels bureaucrats in Ukraine and in the Red Sea.

 

[Arjen]

the one being done by the Brussels bureaucrats in Ukraine and in the Red Sea

We appear to inhabit separate realities.

 

[Justo Miranda]

We appear to inhabit separate realities.

In my opinion, stupid behavior is to warn the Russians months in advance of the type of weapons with which they are going to help the Ukrainians, as well as the date on which the offensive is going to begin. The bureaucrats in Brussels do not want to win, but to prolong the war as long as possible at the expense of the taxes of the Europeans and the blood of the fighters... hoping that one of the two parties will give in due to exhaustion to hold a peace conference with the intervention of Brussels.

It is stupid, the Russians are not stupid and are already seriously damaging our democratic institutions, this manoeuvre cannot end well.

To all these mistakes we must add the attitude of European warships (which have been built to keep European trade routes open) in the face of Houthi attacks: shooting down the missiles that are thrown at us but not attacking the launch sites, to our shame in the end it had to be the Israelis, the British and the Americans who do the dirty work.

Brussels suffers from Stockholm syndrome because of Islamist attacks and does not want to do anything to justify them, but the Israelis, the British and the Americans also have a large number of Islamists within their countries and that does not prevent them from defending themselves.

 

[BlackBat242]

As a German citizen born in 1961, I take *extreme* umbrage at you characterizing me as an "outsider" - I literally lived near one of your imaginary front lines (does Fulda Gap ring a bell?), with regular air raid siren drills during my school career.

I most certainly do categorize you as an outsider to the Americanized English language... the meaning and application of which is the exact topic that you had commented on, and to which comment I was responding!

 

[Antonio]

I can't really understand the purpose of this thread. Time to close it?

 

[southwestforests]

Newsflash - the very same thing is also true for German, and I'd wager a sizeable bet for any other language on this planet as well...

Well, there's concrete public evidence you didn't read the post,

John McWhorter shows that these shifts are common to all languages,