CIA sabotaged Soviet Union in 1982

[Ted Striker]

Well said.

"Geniuses"

[chequita guevara]

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.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Good lawd

You guys have been listening to too much Pacifca radio

I and the people of the United States of America personally apologize for picking on the poor, defenseless, benevolent Soviet Union.

The Russians never did anything wrong. It was the USA's fault, completely. 100%

Chegitz if you love Russia so much then get the **** out of the USA and move there

I believe Chegitz was active on the thread "How do I move to your country".

Seriously, as I mentioned earlier -- both sides were playing to win. I think it's obvious both sides are guilty of many things. (justified by the defense "self preservation")

[OliverFA]

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.

- 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

- 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?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

And I´m guessing that Spain has also been relocated to Eastern Europe. For the undocumented, remember that Franco was backed by the US as a lesser evil oposite to a communist regime in Spain.

[Stefu]

The age of Soviet imperialism ended in 1922.

Sure.

[The Andy-Man]

1996......?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And what horrible things did the Soviets do while there? Hmmm, built roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Mine every square inch of the countryside.

[Capt Dizle]

can someone post the link

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Mine every square inch of the countryside.

And blow up roads, schools, bridges, hospitals.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
And blow up roads, schools, bridges, hospitals.

And eat babies

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by ErikM

And eat babies

no, but collectivization forced people to do that

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Stefu


Sure.

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OliverFA
And I´m guessing that Spain has also been relocated to Eastern Europe. For the undocumented, remember that Franco was backed by the US as a lesser evil oposite to a communist regime in Spain.

Yes, and so were Pinochet and Suharto.

Since Spain is only a mildly retarded country, it would have been interesting to see what communism would have done there. I'm not betting my money that Franco was better.