 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Given the nature of the Stalinist regime, communist revolution was as dangerous to him as it was to the Allies, as a democratic communist state would show the lie that was the USSR,"
What!? The foreign communists were all Pro-Soviet. What about the Italian Communists saying that in a war with the Soviet Union they would back the USSR? |
Of course they would. However, the Italian Communists were not as far under the sway of the Soviets as people think. One of their main leaders, who was dead, was very independent of the Soviets. As early as the late 40s, the PCI was charting its own course. Were there an Italian Revolution, I highly doubt that it would be a Soviet sattelite, but rather a Communist power in its own right. Given the multitendency nature of the party, it would have presented polotical difficulties for the top down rulership of Stalin in the USSR.
Ted, get over yourself.
Uncle Boris, the Allies didn't so much expect the Soviets to fail as to be burdened with EE. France was relatively intact, and Britain wasn't that badly damaged. Especially considering the ravaging of the USSR, it was much harder for the Soviets to rebuild Eastern Europe than it was for the U.S. Western Europe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Don't you know that both England and America agreed, after WW2, to let EE fall to the USSR? That's how it worked: countries liberated by the Allies became capitalist, countries liberated by the USSR became communist. The USSR didn't have any strong intent to bring Communism elsewhere. |
That reminds me of a famous story that is told in almost all the Game Theory books and courses about the Cold War and explains partially the nuclear fear of those years.
The story says that USSR was ready to attack Western Europe and conquer as much countries as possible. They knew that it was much more difficult for the USA, with an ocean in between, to defend those countries. The also knew that the only possible answer was the nuclear attack, which would lead to another nuclear attack from USSR to the USA. So they were pretty confident that the USA would not anwer with that nuclear attack, because what they would lose would be even more than USSR conquering even a bigger part of Europe.
code:
- USSR doesn´t attack (USSR:0,USA:0)
- USSR attacks
- USA goes to conventional war (USSR:+1,USA:-1)
- USA goes to nuclear war (USSR:-100,USA:-100)
The answer from the USA (a very risky one but which worked) was to force themselves to retaliate using nuclear weapong if that conventional invasion of Europe from the communist block happened. The politicians said publicily that if such thing happened, they would use their nuclear power to defend their allies. Consequently, if after that USSR had invaded and the USA had not replied, they would had been discredited to public opinion. They "burned the bridges" and left for themselves no other option, which changed the rules of the game. After that declaration, the choices for USSR were a bit different
code:
- USSR doesn´t attack (USSR:0,USA:0)
- USSR attacks
- USA goes to nuclear war (USSR:-100,USA:-100)
So, if USSR was only interested in countries "liberated" by them, why did they want to attack sovereign countries in Western Europe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
can someone post the link
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That isn't true. Czechoslovakia was independent before as the Kingdom of Bohemia, |
It was never a strong, independant country. It repeatedly fell under the influence of Holy German Empire.
quote:
Hungary was it's own independent kingdom, |
It was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Well, at least it was on the ruling side of it, I grant you.
quote:
Poland was independent until the 18th century and was at one time a great power, |
Yes, and Stalin had to give a fvck about Renaissance Poland? You have to put history in perspective. Post-Versailles Europe was a lame child, one many weren't happy with, and were willing to change by force. Politics in the 40s were still about colonialism and imperialism, and the SU was no different than the other powers on this regard.
quote:
Albania was around, etc. |
It had been under Ottoman rule. The Balkans, in the 40s, were still seen as a vacuum left by Austria-Hungary, available for take- and not some kind of new world were some wussies would install benevolent democracies to the benefit of humanity, etc.
quote:
Moreover, all of the states had been independent after Versailles or a little before that in some cases, and then the Soviet Union forced them into their cruel system and made them sattelites. I can't see how you can possibly justify putting them under your yoke just because they were under a different yoke previously.
|
I am ot justifying it, I am putting it in perspective with Britain, France and America, the imperialist capitalist powers. In most of EE, more than ten years after the fall of communism, the standard of life has not increased yet- and don't even think about calling these countries democratic.
quote:
In addition to Czecholsovakia, what about supporting the NK attack on South Korea? Or the clampdown on Hungary? Or demands made on the Turkish government for a base in the Straits? Or Backing the North Vietnamese against the South? Or any number of pro-Soviet people they backed abroad...
|
Communism was a revolutionary doctrine, one that required force to expand.
AGAIN, I HAVE TO REPEAT: THE SOVIET UNION DID AND DID AND DID SUPPORT REVOLUTIONS AND GUERILLAS, HOWEVER THEY DID IT ON A LESSER SCALE THAN AMERICA, AND WERE USUALLY NOT THE INITIATORS OF THE WARS.
Why? because there were millions of men worldwide who were willing to try for a change, and they only asked for some weaponry. On the other side, no one was willing to take arms for capitalism, in the poor countries (for reasons obvious enough). In turn, this means that the US had to be much more BOLD and AGRESSIVE in defending its power and ideology.
quote:
Trying to use historical imperial domination of this area as an excuse to justify the Soviet's action smashes your credibility.
|
Where is it that I said "Soviet actions were justified?" I was merely comparing their so-called imperialism with American imperialism. Don't forget, the SU had only a minor economic interest in most countries- which means they had no compelling reason to spread communism. On the other hand, America had and still has the duty of defending the economic interests of its corporations, which are largely spread throughout the entire world.
The debate here is to prove that the Soviet Union was a minor threat to America- and demonstrating that EE was a natural vacuum, and not some kind of beachead towards world domination, is the first step in doing so. The real threat was COMMUNISM, and communism never required a country to back itself up. It was and still is largely popular (in some variations).
If you need this, well let it be: America sucks, and the Soviet Union sucked. I will not tolerate anything like 'USSR was justified', and not anymore 'America is justified'.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Since the U.S. backed forces took over what happened? They destroyed the hsoitals and schools and re-enslaved the women. |
Che, you are better than this. You know that the Taliban is a MUCH different animal than the Muhajadeen.
--
 I love this Fake Boris justification for Soviet imperialism by saying that since they were in it's "sphere" and they didnt' have strong governments before it was ok. But if the US does the same thing it is wrong. How funny.
quote:
It repeatedly fell under the influence of Holy German Empire. |
The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation with hardly any centralized power. It was like the EU is today. I assure you that Electors and Princes of the HRE were independant.
quote:
It was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. |
Yes, note the last part of the hyphen: "HUNGARIAN".
quote:
Stalin had to give a fvck about Renaissance Poland? You have to put history in perspective. Post-Versailles Europe was a lame child, one many weren't happy with, and were willing to change by force. |
You had said EE had 'never' been indepedant. Are you changing your tune now? Poland, and later, Poland-Lithuania was a great power in the 1600s. They most definetly were independant. Just because they were partitioned does not mean the prior history does not exist.
quote:
In most of EE, more than ten years after the fall of communism, the standard of life has not increased yet- and don't even think about calling these countries democratic. |
What's undemocratic about them? Would you prefer a better standard of living in a totalitarian dictatorship or a less standard of living in a democratic republic? And living standards are pretty good in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, etc., and getting better. It takes a while to set up the infrastructure of capitalism. Of course, we also have to be wary of Soviet information on how good they were performing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I did... and I could totally destroy you with the rest of it if I wanted (such as you admitting that the USSR supported revolutions, but on a lesser scale than the US).
|
Let's see.
quote:
The point stands.. you rail against the US but give the USSR a pass on similar things.
|
I don't. I say that both sucked.
quote:
And if you think the USSR was 'minor' threat to the US, I fear to think what a 'major' threat to the US was.
|
There is some veracity in this. USSR was America's largest threat- which does not mean it was that huge.
quote:
And that "unless you read my last post in its entirety, I won't bother answering you" is a nice way of saying I can't answer your questions. |
Fine with me. Lawyers have difficulty making points, because they prefer attacking single claims to destroy credibility, rather than seeing how the whole thing adds up, and destroying arguments crucial to the process.
So, let's reassert.
1. Sabotaging the USSR was not a terribly good idea. First, because it killed civilians, second, because it did nothing good for America's cause, and third, because it is what contributed to make the USSR more paranoiac. My claim? Cooperation with the USSR was possible, but it was not in the interest of American goverments. Crusing them, also meant crushing the rising worldwide communist movements, which were threatening corporate interests.
However, America is a relatively free land, which means that in order to justify something, you can't put people in jail. You need to use the 'free market' of ideas at your advantage. Historically, this is the Maccarthism, the Red Menace depicted in Hollywood, the propaganda on the news (i.e: they're putting missiles in Cuba, and it's wrong. We have missiles in Turkey, and that's right. Don't ask why). Note that 'terrorism' has replaced communism in the last ten years, as the main tool of imperialism justification.
Ergo: the myth of the 'Red Menace', which I'll be putting in perspective.
Now, I'll answer your 'questions'.
quote:
love this Fake Boris justification for Soviet imperialism by saying that since they were in it's "sphere" and they didnt' have strong governments before it was ok. But if the US does the same thing it is wrong. How funny. |
I never talked about acts being justified or not, and it has been stated explicitly in my other post. The debate is: was the USSR a threat to America? My answer: no, or, more precisely, not as much as American propaganda would have liked it to be. The reason: USSR considered its zone of influence to be EE and Northern Asia, and in the meantime fully recognized the West's dominance on Africa, South America, Western Europe, and colonial Asia.
You will have to concede the following: if I can demonstrate that former claim, I have won the debate, which is about cooperation with SU being possible, and the SU not being such a huge threat.
We will now proceed to EE. Your tactic (and other's tactic, too), so far, has been to say that puppeting EE was wrong, that it was imperialist and threatening. To which I said:
1. Yes, it was wrong, especially from my personal viewpoint (I'm some sort of anarcho-socialist).
2. Yes, it was indeed some form of 'imperialism'. But we have to consider the meaning of the word imperialist here. There is the imperialism of those expanding their empire (i.e., Rome in the 1st century BC, America in the 20th century), and the decadent imperialism of those upkeeping their Empire (i.e., Ottoman empire in the 19th century, Rome in the 4th century). The Soviet Union was between these two extremes, but was closer to the second. After 1922, they settled on their conquests, and decided to concern themselves with domestic issues. At this point, they had abandoned the idea of a manifest destiny, which would lead them to spread communism everywhere.
WW2 was a huge historical incident, which forced the hand upon USSR: they were not prepared and not willing to go to war- but they had to.
EE was a loot for a war they hadn't prepared, but they chose to keep it anyway, and they had good reasons for this. There was the menace of 'true' communist states emerging, and the prestige issue, combined with a mild imperialism: don't forget, EE was still seen as an empty vacuum, left by Versailles a mere 27 years earlier. They would have been dumb not to jump on the opportunity.
The conquest of EE was not a STRONG imperialist move, but rather a circumstancial opportunity. That they created brutal regimes, has nothing to do with imperialism per se.
Now, look at the other consequence of WW2: North Korea and Manchukuo. Manchukuo became Chinese, and Korea was a vacuum left by the other Axis power Japan. Back in 1950, 1900 was still a close date. Manchukuo had become a Russian puppet in the late 19th century, that they lost to Japan in 1905. Korea had been a Japanese colony, and, in Stalin's eyes, it had to become a Soviet colony. For a strong country like Russia, it was only natural that Korea should be theirs (because of proximity and strategic importance)- just like the Antilles are seen by America as its natural sphere of influence.
This is why North Korean forces were armed with Soviet weapons, and note that it was about the only single time where the USSR had been serious about arming and funding a war on its OWN initiative.
Before going forward, let's answer yout nitpicks (which BTW are not terribly important when pitted against my 'real' arguments).
quote:
The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation with hardly any centralized power. It was like the EU is today. I assure you that Electors and Princes of the HRE were independant. |
The history of the Holy Roman empire, is the history of its members trying to force their authority on the others. Central Europe had always been a vacuum, waiting for its leader. Charles Quint tried his way; the Austrians did. Later, unified Germany (under Prussia) was succesful. The SU was filling the void of Hitler's demise, and, back in the 30s, it had no intent to conquer EE.
quote:
Yes, note the last part of the hyphen: "HUNGARIAN". |
Well, I did say someting like: "I concede, the empire was part Hungarian". Which means that Hungary was no different than the others: it was imposing its presence on EE. Besides, most Hungarians felt like Austria was fvcking them.
quote:
You had said EE had 'never' been indepedant. Are you changing your tune now? Poland, and later, Poland-Lithuania was a great power in the 1600s. They most definetly were independant. Just because they were partitioned does not mean the prior history does not exist. |
Yes, these countries do have their unique culture and history, and yes, they have been independant before. However, by 19th century they had become quite insignificant, and were mere objects shared between the prevalent power of X time. Stalin was only walking on the steps of history- and given that most of what he got had been part of the Romanov empire a mere half-century ago, you definitely can't say he was using this as a staging ground for world conquest: he was defending the prestige of his empire.
Now, let's examine the threat posed by USSR.
2. To answer the idea that Soviet initiatives were threatening, let's take a retroactive look at history. WW2 struck a decisive blow to European colonialism, which allowed national liberation guerillas to emerge everywhere. Those guerillas were often of socialist/communist flavor, and, in such, were threatening the world's economic order. Keep in mind that the world, in 1950, was still a relent of colonialism, with the West having huge economic interests everywhere: South America, Africa, East Indies, continental Asia, Arabia.
The traditional Europen powers, France and Britain, were less and less able to sustain their empire, which not only would crumble, but also turn COMMUNIST: thus eradicating the the huge mining and ressources gathering corporations built throughout the 19th century. Fortunately, America was here to help, and their solution was neo-colonialism: grant independance, but only as long as our economic interests are protected. Which means destroying communist guerillas, and keeping them at bay with our own dictators.
America, starting in the 50s, was applying a vassalization policy worldwide, that had worked well in South America, during the first half of the century. In doing so, they were protecting the West's already existent interests, and, in the same time, becoming Occident's major power. (In other words, the decadent imperialism of Britain was replaced by the rising imperialism of America, which was quicly becoming more powerful than the world had ever seen a country be).
Now, where were the Soviet interests? nowhere. The Soviet Union had always been a continental power, and, after 1945, mainly resumed the course taken in 1922: work on domestic policy, enforce the police state, economic growth, work on the militaro-industrial complex, etc. The only thing was that their empire now contained the bonus territory they gained in WW2: EE and, hopefully, Manchukuo and Korea. However, seeing how they emerged victorious from WW2, they were required, for prestige issues, to help in some way the national communist movements. They had nothing to lose; at worse, former colonies would remain under the West's influence; at best, they would turn communist and become allies. (And already, seeing how Yugoslavia and China had turned, they were defiant as to the loyalty of possible allies, even communist).
When you look at USSR's foreign policy, you have to keep this in mind, always: they had nothing to lose from the decolonization turmoil; therefore, they weren't compelled to participate in it as strongly as Britain, France and America did. For the former it was a prestige issue, while for the latter it was a necessity (esp. considering how America's foreign policy is shaped by corporate interests). From a domestic standpoint, too, it was necesary: the democratic free market of ideas requires that the nation be united behind fighting a common enemy. On the other hand, the Soviet propaganda was still playing on the idea of 'building communism' (and not spreading it), which was sufficient for them. Do you imagine America in the 50s saying: "let's build democracy"? No you don't, because we all know that small countries with no international agenda quickly turn into super-liberal social democracies (Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, etc), who end up legalizing gay marriage and marijuana.
This is my point: the USSR was not REALLY interested in turning the world into a communist heaven, and the occasional victories of socialist guerillas (Angola, Cuba, etc) are mere bumps in history- especially when you look at how many countries became capitalist vassals of America, despite the popular support leaning on the other side.
The space and nuclear race were only a prestige issue, it had nothing to do with a Soviet intent of invading the world. The huge military complex was a remnant of WW2, and a convenient way of putting the people at work while instilling proudness in them.
quote:
What's undemocratic about them? Would you prefer a better standard of living in a totalitarian dictatorship or a less standard of living in a democratic republic? And living standards are pretty good in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, etc., and getting better. It takes a while to set up the infrastructure of capitalism. Of course, we also have to be wary of Soviet information on how good they were performing. |
Yes, and Gorbatchev was intent on doing some reforms to help the communist block. Hadn't he been troubled, Russia and EE would be far better now, and the transition would have been less rocky. Personnally, if I had to choose between, say, Putin's Russia or Andropov's Soviet Union, I would pick the latter.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What do you call setting fire to an entire bus fleet in East Blerin, blowing up bridges in the USSR, spreading swine fever in Cuba, the Contras, RENAMO, UNITA, etc.? |
Defending freedom
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-02-2004 10:11
|