CIA sabotaged Soviet Union in 1982

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OliverFA
So, if USSR was only interested in countries "liberated" by them, why did they want to attack sovereign countries in Western Europe?

The Soviet blitzkrieg is a myth. They never intended to blitz through Western Europe. Look at Cuba, for Christ's sake: they didn't even have the guts to force the blockade, while they would have been totally justified in doing so.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well said.

"Geniuses"

You could try to bring some arguments on the table? You remind me of the populace, in 1640, who was like: "hey! he said God doesn't exist! ha ha ha ha!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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.

It was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Yes, note the last part of the hyphen: "HUNGARIAN".

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.

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.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, unless you read my last post in its entirety, I won't bother answering you.

[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). The point stands.. you rail against the US but give the USSR a pass on similar things.

And if you think the USSR was 'minor' threat to the US, I fear to think what a 'major' threat to the US was.

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.

[Harry Tuttle]

Hey look, the Iron Curtain brotherhood has popped some rivets... It must be so nice to be selective in your history then constantly backtrack when people provide facts.

Oh, and I do believe the Romanovs were long dead when the Soviets attacked Finland. You see, there was this thing called the 1917 revolution...

And what was that about Renaissance Poland? One of the most prominent countries of Europe and no one gives a "****" about it?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Finland had been part of the Romanov empire, and thus seen as natural territory. Besides, Stalin, in 1939-1940, was waging defensive wars against rising Germany. You know that.

Okay, so taking Poland, the Baltic states, those were all defensive right? Creating a buffer zone. Poor little Russia couldn't defend itself without a buffer zone...but hey that's okay right because the Soviets were doing it?

Anyway, alot of good it did them.

Too bad they got their azzes kicked by the Finns.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Since Spain is only a mildly retarded country,

Sure, the country that grows more than twice the European mean while the "great" France and Germany are close to recession is a retarded country. I suspect that all your statements are as true as this one...

it would have been interesting to see what communism would have done there. I'm not betting my money that Franco was better.

If you want to know what communism DID to Spain, look at the books about the Spanish Republic and the Spanish Civil War.

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Sure, the country that grows more than twice the European mean while the "great" France and Germany are close to recession is a retarded country. I suspect that all your statements are as true as this one...

Well, Spain is less rich, more racist, less tolerant, etc. It's probably on the right path today, but back in the 30s it was Western Europe's lame duck.

If you want to know what communism DID to Spain, look at the books about the Spanish Republic and the Spanish Civil War.

This way, I'll learn how great of a man was Franco.

[Capt Dizle]

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

[DinoDoc]

I love how were are being lectured that a State's bid to establish regional hegenomy wasn't a real threat to the only other regional hegemon at the time.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Defending freedom

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I love how were are being lectured that a State's bid to establish regional hegenomy wasn't a real threat to the only other regional hegemon at the time.

Well, China, for instance, is the real threat.

[DinoDoc]

As was Russia.