Soviet Union's Possible Success

[David Floyd]

che,

And you think any of those nations you mentioned were actually democratic?

I suppose by a loose stretch of the term - but in reality Britain was not a democracy, nor was imperial Germany or Russia, or Puerto Rico or Nicaragua.

Not that we should have fought any of them, I grant you, but I disagree that those nations were really democratic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

War of 1812? Revolutionary War? US invasion of Puerto Rico? WWI (Germany, like England, was a constitutional monarchy, much power resided in the Parliament)? The Contra War against Nicaragua? Democracies fight each other also. The US Civil War?

In the War of 1812, the British government wasn't a democracy since the King held so much power, neither was it in the Revolutionary War. US invaded Puerto Rico when it was a colony of Spain, hardly a democracy. In WW1, Germany was not a democracy, since the Kaiser was powerful as he was. The Contras weren't democratic. In the US Civil War, the Confederacy wasn't a democracy (too young to be a Democracy, and after a few years abandoned much democratic ideals).

Greece and Turkey are always almost getting into a fight, and only their NATO allies keep them from fighting. Turkey invaded Cyprus.

Do you think Turkey is actually a democracy? It's a military democratic republic if anything.

The whole democracies never fight is a crock of sh*t.

I still haven't seen any proof that discredits the indepth research done in establishing the Democratic Peace theory, which is the closest thing to a law in International Relations.

And just to tie it back into the thread, the US, Britain, and France all attacked the nacent Soviet state, back when it was still democratic.

Yes... real democracy. Firstly, it violates the time agreement (a state can't be a democracy if it hasn't existed for 3 years), and even during war communist, calling the USSR a democracy is too much... it was almost as authoritarian as Stalin's experiment. The NEP didn't exist until the mid 1920s .

[Saras]

--"And just to tie it back into the thread, the US, Britain, and France all attacked the nacent Soviet state, back when it was still democratic"

SU never ever was democratic. Please stop lying.

[Colwyn]

Lithunia was free until German agression began

I do remember that the SU did give(with some patriotic action by the baltic states) the baltic states their independance after the 1917 SU revolution. It wasn't until germany with England/Frances hope that Hitler would attack the SU first that you lost it when hostilities began.

Blame Germany not the SU for their necessiteries, remember the baltic states lost a far less % of their population than the SU, Germany, poland etc in the war.

The SU has honoured more agreements than most nations and had been betrayed more than most.

I do agree that the first casulety of war is the inoccent and less millitaristic at the end of the day.

Think of it this way if England/France and Russia smited Hilter before he began the 2nd world war might not have happened but each was hoping a nieghbour would take out the compitition.

PS My wife is Latvian and I am sorry that the baltic states were involved in uneccesary grief b/c of all empires.

I'm English/Russian(Far relation to Zhukov)/Greek and more Greeks were lost in the fight for democratic elections after the war than before it.

[Saras]

nobody "gave" Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia their independence. We declared it, and defended it with our infant army, from bolsheviks, Poles, ragtag German army remnants etc.

Lithuania lost more AFTER the war, when the smiling, idealistic communist paradise shipped 10% of our population east, where 50% of them died;

We also lost our entire Jewish population of 200 000 during the war.

[Fidel]

saras, if only you could tame your independist temper. but well, let's use your method of chopping and commenting


Originally posted by Saras
--“unfortunately, the communist experiment did not take place in a test tube, but in a hostile environment that tried to destroy the soviet state for 70 years.”

After the interventions in early 1920’s, what hostile environment are you talking about? If you look at trade figures, there were gadzilions of Western industrial equipment shipped in prewar USSR. There were Western engineers and supervisors at almost every major construction in USSR, so your argument is not 100% true.[/QUOTE]

interesting point
there was a brest litovsk peace treaty that took away a huge chunk of territory, then intervention of 18 states, then a polish invasion. it all ended ca 1922 but you do know that the civil war went on for a couple of years longer and the country was ravished.
by 'hostile' i did not mean 'non trading'. as lenin noted correctly, capitalist will sell you a rope with which you will later hang him. so they went on trading with the ussr, russian ore materials for german machines mostly. entante established a cordon sanitaire around ussr, comprising of authoritarian or semi-fascist states (poland, hungary, romania, yugoslavia, bulgaria, etc.). that was the buffer zone towards east. so the only serious trading partner of the ussr was germany, itself an outcast from the western world.

--“as a consequence, it developed into a paranoid police-party structure.”

Not as a consequence. It is a defining trait of the Soviet system from the outset. Your view on USSR history is a bit (huge understatement) idealistic.

i am aware that a man is onthologically determined by his place of birth, but try elevating yourself. you really sound like a broken record there. try with the word 'soviet' for starters - what was it, how it developed, how did this councils grow in importance and why?

--“still, its overall impact was more postive than negative - it defeated hitler and it caused big capital worldwide to reexamine its position and treatment of the labor force.”

Well, Hitler pretty much defeated himself, but of course USSR was a key factor in the Allied victory. But you should not attribute this to communism – a tsarist or even better, a democratic Russia would also have defeated Hitler.

oh yes, hitler pretty much shot his generals and prevented them from turning left when they reached kiev, etc. etc. first of all, those generals were appointed, fed and armed by hitler. he put them into position where they could have had won the war. they were hesitant to attach czechoslovakia, it was him who pushed for serious military threat. but, unlike him, they lived to write their denigrating memoirs and exculpate themselves.

as for 'democratic' russia, well it surely handled WWI well. WW2 was won because hitler met his organizational match and a system as wily and fanatical as the one he developed. that's about it.

Soviet Union wasn’t completely alone in its struggle, but I don’t want to get into the traditional “Importance of lend-lease to Soviet ultimate victory” debate.

please don't. i'd rather watch 'pearl harbor' instead

Re: labor – where is this from? The international labor movement started in the 19th century…?

oh and by 1917 they succeeded in what? not being summarily shot on their may 1 parades? cmon, it was the typical appeasement situation.


P.S. why do you treat every comment on the ussr so personally? because of the baltic states? history is really not about them, nor their loss of sovereignty - your country, just like mine, gets a footnote in the history books.

[Colwyn]

10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises

But yes it was not very nice but such was the result for siding with the germans. I don't blame you at all as it wasn't till much 's after that people or those pro german realised what excesives the germans were about.

Even the Russians were amazed that their german comrades could attack them!!!!!

[Heresson]

nobody "gave" Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia their independence. We declared it, and defended it with our infant army, from bolsheviks, Poles, ragtag German army remnants etc.

It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule.
You were collaborating with Germans.

Lithuania lost more AFTER the war, when the smiling, idealistic communist paradise shipped 10% of our population east, where 50% of them died;

Still, Poles of Lithuania were in worse situation than Lithuanians.

We also lost our entire Jewish population of 200 000 during the war.

Heavily polonised

[Saras]

--"10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises"

Huh? You mean Lithuanian population? Stop smoking that funky ****, will you?

--"It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule.
You were collaborating with Germans. "

You too.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Saras
--"10% of the population were nazi's or sympethises"

Huh? You mean Lithuanian population? Stop smoking that funky ****, will you?

--"It were Poles that saved You from bolshevik rule.
You were collaborating with Germans. "

You too.

cmon, all eastern european nations are dodgy. we gotta admit that. mythomania, manicheism, self-pitying and terror of the small differences. stop this

[Saras]

--"cmon, all eastern european nations are dodgy. we gotta admit that. mythomania, manicheism, self-pitying and terror of the small differences. stop this"

Not this nation

[Saras]

oh, and by "You too" I meant that he should also stop smoking that funky stuff

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In the War of 1812, the British government wasn't a democracy since the King held so much power, neither was it in the Revolutionary War.

Despite having a King, it was still a democracy, especially for its time. The King's power was moral, not legal. Parliament held most of the power, then, as now. And the US had the same types of restrictions on participation in the government as the Brits.

US invaded Puerto Rico when it was a colony of Spain, hardly a democracy.

Puertp Rico was an autonomous part of the Spanish Empire. It had beaten the Spanish in a revolt, and settled for autonomy rather than full independence. Nonetheless, they voted on their own leaders.

In WW1, Germany was not a democracy, since the Kaiser was powerful as he was.

Constitutional monarchy. The people voted, and Parliament held the purse strings. If the Parliament had voted against war credits, there would have been no war.

The Contras weren't democratic.

The Contras were a proxy army of the United States, which is sort of democratic.

In the US Civil War, the Confederacy wasn't a democracy (too young to be a Democracy, and after a few years abandoned much democratic ideals).

You can't define democracy away by giving it a time limit.

Do you think Turkey is actually a democracy? It's a military democratic republic if anything.

Yep, it may be limited, but it's still democratic. Okay, not very, but it's close enough to be considered for EU membership.

and even during war communist, calling the USSR a democracy is too much...

There was a period before war communism, the Foreign Intervention began with the April 1918 rising of the Czech Guards. Even during war communism, the Mensheviks and Left SRs participated in the government.

[Ecthy]

*pours oil into the fire*

[Imran Siddiqui]

Che, all your examples are non-democracies. Britain and Germany had way too strong monarchies to be considered a democracy, even if there was still some voting going one.

And yes, you CAN define a democracy away by giving a time limit... It is in the damned definition of democracy!

I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.