Was the USSR truly a "global threat"?

[IrateCitizen]

Time after time, I hear the rationale used to justify unsavory US actions during the Cold War that it was in response to the global threat provided by the Soviet Union. Yet, when I look at historical accounts, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the USSR really only affected a relatively small part of the world: Eastern Europe.

This is not to say that many of its actions in forcibly crushing independence movements (even if they WERE socialist, just not sufficiently pro-Soviet) in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. were not reprehensible. They most certainly were.

But I just fail to see evidence of how the USSR was behind communist/nationalist movements in OTHER parts of the world in which we were only too happy to stick our nose out of what appears, in retrospect, to be naked self-interest to the exclusion of self-determination.

Could anyone please explain to me how the USSR was so poised to take over the entire world, and therefore any/all of our actions were justified?

[mobuto]

1. No the USSR was not poised to take over the world

But yes it was a global threat.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Explain, because your statement is a contradiction

Unless, of course, you're speaking of the "rotten apple" theory -- which basically says that if third world nations were able to see a socialist state make great gains technologically and as a world player, that they might be tempted to try their own varying degrees of nationalist socialism, thus bringing the entire colonial order set up by the nations of Western Europe and carried on by the United States crashing down.

[Frodo_Baggins]

5. Despite myth, Soviet technology sucked.

Living there sucked, too.

[IrateCitizen]

11. I'm not saying at all it was a garden of roses

But if you look at Russia under the Czars (an agrarian society) compared to the USSR in its first 35 years, it is undeniable that they industrialized at an unbelievably fast rate -- far and away faster than either the US or UK.

Of course, the human costs with this modernization were tremendous and horrific. Still, it's pretty hard to discount a country going from ignorant and agrarian to the first nation to launch a man into space in a span of only 40 years, don't you think?

[Frodo_Baggins]

94. They might have industrialised, but it was worthless,

As 90% of that went into military and heavy industry - not lifestyle improvement.

In the 1950's, it was sometimes difficult to get proper winter clothes.

[sangh0]

9. I can explain

While the USSR did not have the resources to conquer the planet, they did have the resources to threaten any individual nation, including the US. Furthermore, by funding various proxy wars they contributed to global instability, though our record on that score isn't any better.

[K-W]

32. How were they anymore a global threat than any large country in the world?

And if all large countries are global threats, isnt our definition of global threat off?

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Ask Eastern Europe about that

[IrateCitizen]

45. Eastern Europe was their "bitch", like Latin America was ours

The "Monroe Doctrine" and "Brezhnev Doctrine" weren't too far off from one another.

[K-W]

48. Really and other big countries dont exploit, screw with, and control

thier neighbors?

right

once again, how were they different than any other large country.

[cprise]

51. The reason why many Europeans do not want a federal EU

They don't want to create another militarist beast.

But that's another topic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. They kept trying to conquer others

Like Afghanistan for instance.

[IrateCitizen]

59. Actually, you're quite misinformed on Afghanistan

The initial government in Afghanistan was pro-Soviet, but it WAS an Afghan government. And it did accomplish several reforms that made life much better than it was under the warlords -- like respect for women's rights, for instance.

The Soviets didn't invade until the US -- led by Carter NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski -- actually started funding the Islamic fundamentalists seeking to expel the "infidels".

THAT is when the Soviets invaded. Not that it excuses their subsequent actions, but it's important to notice that we basically goaded them into attacking, so we could give them their very own "Vietnam".

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Not misinformed

They made it a client state, much like eastern Europe, Cuba and others. That didn't work out and, much like Vietnam for us, they started pumping more and more military in the place.

[IrateCitizen]

65. You know, I forgot for a minute who I am dealing with.

I should know better than suggest that your impressions might actually be WRONG, because the response is quite predictable by this time. But, I digress....

Historical accounts on the events leading to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are clear enough. The Afghan government was not a Soviet CLIENT state, although they WERE pro-Soviet. IOW, the Soviets had not hand-picked the rulers as they did in Eastern Europe.

Cuba became a client state of the USSR only AFTER we were messing with Castro so much that he had nowhere else to turn. Even after the fact, he continued to disagree with them on plenty -- especially their cultural ignorance to the very real differences between Russia and Latin America.

The only true "client states" to the USSR were, in fact, in Eastern Europe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. The Afghan government

Was, of course, a Soviet client. To deny that is ludicrous.

The USSR had clients throughout the world, including Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. In fact, the Russian ties to Iraq are still strong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Afghanistan:the rest of the story

I'm no friend of the Soviet Union, having heard what they did in Latvia and having heard plenty of stories from Jewish emigres in the 1970s.

However, let's stick to blaming them for things that they're actually guilty of.

After a group of local Marxists took over the government in 1978, the U.S. began funding the mujahedeen guerillas (including the precursors of the Taliban--one of their issues was being against things like compulsory education for girls). The Marxist government asked the Soviets for help in routing the guerillas.

That is, the Soviets didn't just wake up one morning and decide to invade Afghanistan for the sheer imperialistic fun of it. They were invited by a friendly government.

Afghanistan became a quagmire for the Soviets, just as Vietnam did for the U.S. The situations are very similar.

All their other examples of "conquering" other countries consisted of either encouraging/bankrolling local Marxists in places such as China and Vietnam (and Marx, whose writings have been available since the mid nineteenth century, is not exactly a secret) or of re-establishing control in the countries that Stalin conquered in the 1940s (suppressing guerillas in the Baltic States, interventions in East Germany in 1952, in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968).

[sangh0]

42. Lots of nukes, ICBM's, and a huge military

Three things that a number of large nations do not have.

[K-W]

50. Really?

last time I checked the few countries that are of such a massive size do generally have those things.

[sangh0]

61. Really? Lots of nukes, a huge military AND ICBM's?

Which ones?

[IrateCitizen]

63. Considering that ICBM's have been around only 50 years or so...

Insisting that they be brought into the equation is narrowing the window of history too much to encourage any kind of honest analysis.

[sangh0]

66. More than 50 years ago, the USSR wasn't a global threat, IMO.

.

[IrateCitizen]

69. More than 50 years ago, you're still talking post WWII

That, IIRC, was when the Soviet Union ascended to claim the mantle of one of the two major powers in the world.

Or were all the history classes I had and books I read mistaken on this issue?

[sangh0]

75. Right

IMO that was the period when the USSR took on the role of a superpower. Before that, that is before 50 years ago, they had not taken on that role yet.

BTW, "50 years" may not be 100% accurate due to rounding errors :-)

[IrateCitizen]

77. But wasn't that the same time we took over as a superpower?

I mean, WWII signaled the official end of the British Empire and ushered in the US to take over, did it not? Wouldn't it be reasonably accurate to say that the US and USSR both ascended at pretty much the same time, +/- a couple of years?

[sangh0]

83. Not exactly

The USSR was devastated by the Great War. Some of the wars biggest battles took place on Russian territory, which was not the situation for the US.

Bascially, we're both vaguely agreeing about when USSR's ascendancy took place. Approximately 50 years ago. Whether it was a few years more or a few years less doesn't seem particularly relevant.

[John BigBootay]

81. N. Kruschev banging shoe on table-- "We will bury you!!!"

Stalin Kills 25 million dissidents.

USSR takes over numerous independent nations and converts them into communist satellite states.

USSR steals nuclear technology from America and enters a horrifying arms race.

If they were not a global threat-- they sure played one on TV.

[Kaysera]

88. Here ... here ... !

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Not prepared to answer your last question

But the Soviets via Castro were quite active in Latin America in the 70's and 80's...certainly not to the degree that warranted the Reagan slaughters, but in my travels in Nicaragua and El Salvador during those years there were signs of Soviet influence...you'd find them in the strangest places...bars...hand made signs on trash cans etc.

Not arguing the technical history here nor suggesting that INFLUENCE equals THREAT...simply commenting that they did have some influence there and much was via Castro.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Didn't Castro himself turn toward the Soviets primarily because...

He figured that it was the only way to ensure his survival with the way the CIA was bearing down on him? I always believed that he actually didn't believe much of what the Soviets preached, because he found them to be quite hypocritical and completely ignorant of cultural issues in Latin America.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Sure and I agree with that

But when BOTH nations went after Latin America for their own gains..things began to devolve. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[Frodo_Baggins]

4. As an ex-USSR citizen - yes, and no.

Yes, the USSR was aiding pro-USSR forces all over the world, thus they were a global threat.

No, not ALL US actions were justified. Some were. The Soviet leaders were truly evil ***cks.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Could you please give examples?

And were they aiding those forces primarily because they sought to expand their influence, or were many instances more because they hoped that they could help give the US a black eye?

[Frodo_Baggins]

10. Syria,

Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, lots of African countries.

To some of these they actually *gave* lots of military hardware.

[IrateCitizen]

15. OK, thanks -- but a question

When did they give arms to Iran? Were they openly supportive of Mohammed Mossadeq? From what I know of the history there, the Shah was one of the most steadfast US allies in the region -- and one of the most brutal and authoritarian rulers as well.

[rinsd]

16. Those goals.....

"And were they aiding those forces primarily because they sought to expand their influence, or were many instances more because they hoped that they could help give the US a black eye?"

Are not mutually exclusive.

[IrateCitizen]

23. That's true -- but I'm looking for a difference of degree

By saying "expanding interest", I'm talking of the installation of puppet governments who would kowtow to the Soviet regime. By saying "giving a black eye", I'm referring to the support of primarily nationalist movements that were battling the residual of colonialism (like in Vietnam).

[rinsd]

28. Expanding interest....

"By saying "expanding interest", I'm talking of the installation of puppet governments who would kowtow to the Soviet regime."

That's domination...a little different than "expanding influence. I understand what your saying. The US or USSR did many things sometimes for naked self interest, sometimes for perceived threats, sometimes to just take a shit in the other's bed.

"By saying "giving a black eye", I'm referring to the support of primarily nationalist movements that were battling the residual of colonialism (like in Vietnam)."

Again we have different definitions, black eye to me would be voting against us in the UN. Supplying arms and logisitics is a little more than that.

[kentuck]

7. Was Osama really the brains behind the WTC attack ?

How many years before we really know? The conventional wisdom is that Osama was the culprit. However, I am inclined to discount the "automatic" conventional wisdom. This does not mean that Osama has not been involved in other terrorist acts. I believe he has, however, I am not totally assured that Osama is the person they are looking for with regards to the WTC attack. I'm sure he was happy that it happened but I have my doubts that he planned it. Also, I think he is happy to take credit for it. But, I think it is possible that the cell that hijacked the planes may have done so as an independent group or they may have been supported by someone else, perhaps a leader of a nation?

[sangh0]

12. The USSR was also influential in Asia

They had a huge influence on China's foreign policy as well as the Koreas, and Japan. The played a role in Southeast Asia also. Then there's India. And let's not forget the various wars of liberation in Africa.

LiKe the US, Russia has a long tradition of imperialism.

[IrateCitizen]

19. You're mistaken vis a vis East Asia

Sino-Soviet relations pretty much fell out after China became involved in the Korean War and Stalin did nothing. Additionally, China's revolution was a purely nationalist one, and had little to do with the USSR.

WRT North Korea, I don't think the record's all too clear, either. Remember -- the whole reason for the initial North/South rivalry was that the US helped bring the Korean collaborators with Japan to power in the South, while the North was led by those who had actually led the opposition to Japanese colonial rule. That situation was a powder keg waiting for a match. While I know that the Soviets backed N. Korea, I'd hardly say they had the same role there as we did in South Korea.

WRT Southeast Asia, that was a nationalist movement against colonialism. Whatever involvement the Soviets had there, don't you think it was more about giving the capitalists and colonialists a black eye than actually exerting control?

I am aware of their support to various regimes in Africa and also to India.

[sangh0]

27. I wasn't clear

By saying that the USSR influenced Chinese policy, I didn't mean to imply that the Chinese listened to the Soviets. What I meant is that the hostility between the USSR and China is another example of how nations around the globe were threatened by the USSR.

I think a similar misunderstanding is occurring with my Korea comments. And wrt SE Asia, I don't think the two goals were mutually exclusive. I think they were interested in both giving us a black eye, AND exerting control (if they could)

[IrateCitizen]

30. OK, thanks for the clarification

WRT SE Asia, if they truly believed that they would be able to exert a considerable amount of control, then it is clear only that they were as fundamentally ignorant about the region as the US was in getting involved there.

Then again, there are few things that stupify a nation quite like imperial hubris, no matter what form it takes.

[bobbieinok]

79. do you have source/link for your info on Korea??

I know very little about the backgroud post WWII

apparently somewhat similar events in VN (French freed Japanese POWs to help them regain VN - Ho Chi Minh appealed to US for help, got none, and turned to Soviet Union)

[IrateCitizen]

80. "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson

He goes into it in some considerable detail, although I cannot cite the page and paragraph for you. ;-)

[K-W]

13. Only insomuch as the USA was a global threat.

The USSR was a superpower pushing its model for the world economy and supporting nations who would align economically with it. It was certainly a threat to the US and western europe who dominated the global economy before the emergance of the Soviet Union, but thats only because they wanted thier model to dominate the global economy.

The USSR was a percieved ( I dont think actual) threat to the economic interests of the US and Western European Elites. That hardly sounds global to me. The countries that embraced a soviet model werent having any success with the US model because they were either not included in it, or they were being horribly exploited. Trying out the soviet model was hardly a step down.

[BootinUp]

22. Why only talk about economic issues

Clearly the population of the West was highly motivated due to political reasons as well. And I have yet to read or hear anyone begging to go live under Soviet style government.

[K-W]

24. What political reasons?

The only way that the USSR was a political threat was the economic factor. A drastic shift in the shape of the global economy could have devestated the US economy, causing an end to liberalism and creating a political upheaval in the US, which could hypothetically have led to some sort of attempt at a soviet style government. That might have been interesting though, a country as industrialized as the US might have made communism work.

But on just a political level, the USSR was not a threat to the west, and certainly not the globe. There are still plenty of non western style governments in the world, and there were plenty before the USSR. That alone is not an issue.

[IrateCitizen]

25. True -- but I also don't hear many begging to go live...

... under the government of the autocrats we supported throughout history. I don't think many wanted to live in the Phillippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, Zaire under Mobutu, South Korea under their military dictatorships, and so on....

Perhaps that is the primary difference between the US and USSR. In the USSR, the plight of those subject to their aims of domination was not too great -- but neither was the plight of their citizens. At least in the US, we gave our citizens a good standard of living during the Cold War -- even if it was built on the foundation of exploiting others by supporting repressive dictatorships?

[K-W]

31. And no one is begging to live in russia now nor did they before the USSR

IT wasnt the USSR's fault that Russia was unindustrialized. The fact is that the USSR was an attempt at rapid industrialization to try and get Russia up to speed with the US. They failed, but it wasnt thier fault that Russia was not a great place to live in.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Ummm... they certainly didn't help matters much

Nothing like a good purge or two to drive down immigration requests.

[K-W]

37. Indeed they failed.

The original thinkers behind the USSR were trying to fit a model that was never meant to apply to an pre-industrial nation. They failed, they didnt have any mandate from the population. What arose after that was a totalitarian regime like any other which did pretty terrible things to stay in power, as totalitarian regimes are apt to do.

[IrateCitizen]

39. That's a part of it

The other part is the whole idea of fitting things to a "model", rather than trying different things and going with what works.

I'm a democratic socialist, but I have absolutely no problem with the concepts of property or markets. The problem I have is the spot they are assigned on the heirarchy of values.

I saw an interview with the Pastor Emeritus of Riverside Church, William Sloan Coffin, in which he made a very profound statement. He said, "Keep asking the socialist questions, but don't rely on the socialist answers." I think this sums up the problem with the approach of hard-line communists (like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin) quite aptly. To them, the IDEOLOGY was the most important thing, rather than seeking the solutions that had the maximum positive benefit.

[K-W]

46. You are confusing a political model with some other kind of model.

In order to try different things, you need different things to try. Thus you need things, a model is a thing. But a model that is theoretically developed to work in a post-idustrialized country and very much relies on the production and distribution of industry is not a great idea in a rural agrarian nation. The idea of the USSR is that they could rapidly industrialize and create the economic framework. That was a pipe dream.

I think you are being terribly harsh on socialits as a whole and on the russian variety. Btw, Stalin was not a communist ideologue. He was a dictator who used communism to mask his actions.

Capitalism, socialism, commmunism, etc all have the same eventual goal in theory. All economic models in theory aim at providing everyone in a society with a role and with enough resources to reach some level of survival/comfort. No one knows what system might actually do that, or if one has been thought of yet. No society in modern history has done it.

The soviets did not try to fit pure Marxism to Russia. They very much tried to adapt and seek solutions. It just didnt work.

[IrateCitizen]

56. OK...

In order to try different things, you need different things to try. Thus you need things, a model is a thing.

No disagreement here.

But a model that is theoretically developed to work in a post-idustrialized country and very much relies on the production and distribution of industry is not a great idea in a rural agrarian nation.

Agreed as well.

The idea of the USSR is that they could rapidly industrialize and create the economic framework. That was a pipe dream.

Actually, I disagree on this. If one ignores the human costs involved, the USSR was quite successful in modernizing at an incredibly rapid rate. In fact, their industrialization was several times faster than either the US or UK during the industrial revolution.

Of course, once you factor the human costs in, the whole thing becomes rather horrific.

I think you are being terribly harsh on socialits as a whole and on the russian variety.

Read Emma Goldman's first-hand accounts of life in post-revolution Russia. She was someone who supported the revolution from the States, and came to abhor it after living under it. What the Soviets had was never "socialism" -- it was a system that ranged between authoritarianism and totalitarianism (under Stalin) and was a centrally-planned economic system run by bureaucratic elites. One aspect of its eventual downfall was its rank hypocrisy from the early stages.

Capitalism, socialism, commmunism, etc all have the same eventual goal in theory. All economic models in theory aim at providing everyone in a society with a role and with enough resources to reach some level of survival/comfort.

Agreed.

No one knows what system might actually do that, or if one has been thought of yet. No society in modern history has done it.

Amalgamations of the three in varying degrees. Decentralization and a shift in values from property to people probably wouldn't hurt either. Many of the social democracies in Europe seem to be on the right track.

The soviets did not try to fit pure Marxism to Russia. They very much tried to adapt and seek solutions. It just didnt work.

They most certainly did, absent from any respect for the idea of actually allowing the proletariat to run anything. Like I said, read Goldman's accounts in her autobiography, especially of her meetings with Lenin and Trotsky.

[info being]

14. I think "uprisings" like we saw in Haiti are always backed by power

Did you know NY bankers backed Trotsky, for example? I'm starting to wonder whether sheeple have ever created a real grass-roots movement with any success.

So, to address your question / observation...I'm sure the USSR had influence around the world. Yes, their technology sucked and they weren't much of a threat.

[K-W]

21. You can make a very good case that all major changes in history

were caused by a group of elites trying to become more elite.

[indigo32]

26. Interesting

can you suggest some reading I could do on that subject?
thx

[cprise]

17. Quiz: Which superpower had nuclear missiles placed near their border 1st?

The U.S. or the Soviets?

[IrateCitizen]

20. Not the question I'm asking (nt)

[cprise]

29. It informs the debate about who qualifies as a global threat

And the answer is that the U.S. placed nuclear missiles on the Soviet border first.

[IrateCitizen]

33. And by falling back reflexively on the "US is a bigger threat" line

You only serve to eliminate any capacity for honest debate, because then the discussion becomes all about "Why do you hate America?"

I've seen it even on these forums enough to come to this conclusion.

[cprise]

36. So it's "Don't go there"

Another reality pill too big to swallow.

[IrateCitizen]

38. It's called choosing your battles in an attempt to persuade

I realize that this point is lost on those who fail to understand how everyone out there has NOT read at least five books by Noam Chomsky and doesn't recognize that the United States is the greatest threat to world stability on the face of the earth.

I mean, they must just be STUPID if they reflexively reject such lines of thought, right? They certainly aren't as illuminated as those of us who have come to accept them as truth!

[cprise]

40. OK, I just thought it provided a clear example

And I've only read one Chomsky book.

:D

[IrateCitizen]

43. Ignorant fascist!

And I've only read one Chomsky book.

You aren't worthy of my thread! Begone, and leave your counterfeit revolutionary credentials at the door on the way out! :evilgrin:

[rinsd]

34. Missiles?

Actaully a better question would be who had bombers stationed first?

ICBM's didn't come along until the Cold War was well under way.

[Kaysera]

44. Wasn't world domination the stated goal of the governments of the USSR ?

If there wasn't such an anti-USSR force as the US (who matched them in terms of nuclear might), might they not have been successful ?

In other words, ... isn't it really true that the US is the only reason the USSR wasn't a viable global threat ?

[IrateCitizen]

47. Actually, it was world revolution -- per communist dogma

But you can't look at a character like Stalin and say that domination didn't come into the equation as well.

But the question isn't about what slogans they used or anything like that -- rather, it's about whether they really WERE a global threat that justified some rather unsavory acts on our part.

[Kaysera]

53. So my question remains ...

... isn't it really true that the US is the only reason the USSR wasn't a viable global threat ?

[K-W]

54. It was a viable global threat in that sense.

Any country with enough resources has the ability to mount an attempt to threaten the globe.

and they werent aiming to take over the world per se, but to change the face of the globe so that social equity would occurr, I dont call that a threat

[IrateCitizen]

60. No

All the US did was inherit the mantle of Western Imperialism from the sunset of the British Empire -- and put a different approach to it.

The flip question also could be, wasn't it the USSR that actually prevented the US from flexing its unilateralist muscle for all those years?

You can't ask one question without asking the other at the same time.

[Kaysera]

68. I agree that it was rather like a chess match ...

The flip question also could be, wasn't it the USSR that actually prevented the US from flexing its unilateralist muscle for all those years?

You can't ask one question without asking the other at the same time.

Do you propose that the world would have been better served without the US countering the moves of the USSR ?

[IrateCitizen]

70. What I propose is that the world would have been better served

If just one of them might have lent themselves toward supporting self-determination. But neither one did. Contrary to what we're taught, our record on this is just as bad as the USSR's was. Perhaps worse, considering that we tended, as the stronger of the two, to affect more people on the earth than the weaker USSR did.

Additionally, I think that if the USSR never would have existed in its Cold War strength, the US would have embarked on the Global Imperialist Project long ago. Nothing seems to conjure up self-righteous hubris quite like unparalleled military might.

[Kaysera]

84. Please see my post #82

Do you think that the US (of that day) imposed itself upon as many people groups as is shown there ?

[K-W]

49. Not in the slightest

read the thread. THe USSR wasnt some evil juggernaut of power. And the US wasnt a white knight riding in to save the world.

[Kaysera]

57. I read the thread alright ...

THe USSR wasnt some evil juggernaut of power.

Did not the governments of the USSR kill tens of millions of their own citizens ?

Sounds pretty evil ...

[JVS]

58. Stalin got a lot of flak from Trotsky for Socialism in one country...

which claimed that peaceful coexistence is possible. Similarly Krushchev was hated by the Chinese Communists because he did not advocate world revolution to the extent that they thought he should have. These are indicative of world domination at least not being a open goal.

I'd say that they sought security in the same way that the USA seeks security now. The problem with security is that it is the state of feeling secure and is very relative. There is no objective test for security because it is also necessary to be able to deal with perceived threats. So Syria for instance or Iran can live next to Iraq and feel perfectly safe, but we are here around the world and for some reason we need to invade them because they are threatening us.

[Kaysera]

82. So you believe ...

I'd say that they sought security in the same way that the USA seeks security now.

So you believe ...

... that the USSR invaded and dominated Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and Afghanistan ...

... while, simulataneously holding the lands of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine ...

... all for reasons of security ?

[JVS]

87. Yes

You make a big list, but most of those lands had been traditional holdings of Russia before the revolution. It was never as though scheming men plotted in the Kremlin to keep a strangle-hold on Azerbaijan.

After the Revolution the Soviets had the old empire minus Finland, Poland and the baltic coutries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The problem Russia had with its Western neighbors is that they had acted as a nice springboard for offensives into Russia for centuries. It is not surprising that after going through the trouble of kicking the Germans out of Eastern Europe in WWII, that the Russians might want to change these countries into barriers against Western invasions rather than Rest-stops on the way to Russia.

[Kaysera]

89. ... and as for killing tens of millions of their own ?

Was that for security reasons, as well ?

[JVS]

92. When paranoia strikes, security is everything

Have the last few years here not taught you? The quest for security is often unquenchable

[JVS]

52. Hungary had it coming!

As a member of the Axis, Hungary had no right to expect not to be occupied. Hungary sent troops to invade Russia in 41 and they got what they deserved.

[IrateCitizen]

67. Surely, you jest...

To say that Hungary somehow "deserved" what they got is simply beyond the pale.

[JVS]

71. Hungary was justifiably occupied.

It had waged war against The USSR by joining the Axis. Hungary had never been attacked by Germany, it was in the axis in the same manner as Italy or Japan.

If Japan had been rebelling and trying to overturn our occupation government in 1956 we would have felt no qualms about cracking down on that. The Russians were in the right.

edit: typo

[IrateCitizen]

72. Neither situation was in the right

If Japan had been rebelling and trying to overturn our occupation government in 1956 we would have felt no qualms about cracking down on that.

We wouldn't have been right to crack down on Japan for rebelling after a 10-year occupation -- and the Russians surely weren't right for cracking down on Hungary for simply seeking a government that wasn't a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USSR.

[JVS]

73. And if the West Germans had decided to go fascist again?

Would we also be supposed to sit back and let it happen?

[IrateCitizen]

74. I don't think that was exactly in the realm of probability

Besides, we recruited many of the former Nazis to run things throughout and during the occupation.

Better to use them that the socialists or communists, right?

[JVS]

76. Well the question boils down to how long should occupations last?

I think 30 or 40 years is about right. I guess it is really up to the occupier how long it goes on. But to expect Russia to allow a hostile Hungary to get back up is unrealistic.

BTW this is particular to Hungary. As far as the Czech occupation is concerned, Russia didn't need to be there. Slovakia and Poland are slightly different. Slovakia collaborated enormously with the Germans and Poland's position to Russia was unfriendly to say the least.

[JVS]

78. They voted for ex-Nazi Kiesinger

around 1960 there were real fears of a Nationalist comeback

[fedsron2us]

85. The capitalist world tried to destroy the Soviet state

from the moment it was born. The campaign began before the Red Terror or Stalins purges. What the West hated about the USSR was not that, it was a brutal and repressive regime which killed millions of its own citizens, but that it was communist. The property owning classes in the USA and Europe feared the spread of proletarian revolution. It is the abiding nightmare of the rich that one day the poor will rise up and take their money away from them.

[fedsron2us]

86. The capitalist world tried to destroy the Soviet state

from the moment it was born. The campaign began before the Red Terror or Stalins purges. What the West hated about the USSR was not that, it was a brutal and repressive regime which killed millions of its own citizens, but that it was communist. The property owning classes in the USA and Europe feared the spread of proletarian revolution. It is the abiding nightmare of the rich that one day the poor will rise up and take their money away from them.

[Heyo]

90. It was RIGHT that they did that....

I would've supported it if I was alive at the time....

A brutal and repressive regime and a "communist" regime are one in the same... dictator ship, police state, and economic collapse are it's logical conclusion.

Have you ever seen communism exist without a brutal dictatorship?

Or is it that pure communism has never been tried? :+

In order to rob people you have to use violence.

Heyo

[fedsron2us]

95. In order to rob people you have to use violence ?

Indeed you do. Just read a few books on the enclosure movement in England, the Highland clearances in Scotland or the expropriation of land in Ireland and you will see how well this tactic worked for the property owning classes in the past. The same tactic is still being used all round the world today.

As for the late and unlamented Soviet Union. The desires of the workers and peasants to create a fairer world for ordinary people was doomed because vanguardist ideologues such as Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin always intended to keep decision making in the hands of a tiny elite. Orwell nailed their lies in Animal Farm. However, this outcome was not obvious in 1919 when the allied powers supported the White Russian army in their attempt to overthrow the Bolsheviks. They actually feared that the Soviets were serious about world revolution. If they had known how the regime was going to develop they need not have worried.

By the way is not dictatorship, a police state and economic collapse likely to be inevitable outcome of G.W.Bush's current policies

[Heyo]

96. Uh...

"By the way is not dictatorship, a police state and economic collapse likely to be inevitable outcome of G.W.Bush's current policies "

No.

[RandomKoolzip]

93. Hey, great topic!

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting this, IC.

Actually, this is intersting, because a few months ago, I posted a very similar thread and got some very enlightening answers from you - I even went back and dug into some of my dad's old books on Emma Goldman.

Here's the old thread, from the archives:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1045760


Stuff like this is why I love DU!