The reason I'm opening this thread is because the Soviet Union seems to have become fashionable in Europe, loads of young people wearing T-shirts with "CCCP" or the "USSR" printed on the front.

The beginning of the Soviet Union promised a world communist state and every poor person in the world was filled with hope. After a while, it began to lose track of it's original revolutionary aims and they ended up with Stalin as leader, with all the nasty things that this man was responsible for. But he did manage to defeat the Nazis, which was possibly a greater evil to the world.
And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like. And it provided opposition to America's form of capitalism in the 3rd world. Now that it has gone, America is free to do what it wants.

But maybe this is a good thing.

I'm no great lover of capitalism (which plays on human greed), but I don't think communism will ever work either (since it tries to ignore that many humans will take advantage of the system). Given a choice between things, I'd take Republicanism or Monarchy over Communism, not because of the stated goals, but because of the likely outcomes. I also have a bad association with the governments of the 20th century in Russia (I'm part of a Church that had countless people martyred by Stalin, Lenin, et al.) I don't think the Soviet Union (late in the 20th century) was as bad as American rhetoric made it out to be, but I don't think it was a good system either.

As a communist myself I always find it difficult to make judgements on the USSR. I mean I share common goals with it........but then I really disagree with it's imperialistic ways and the way it's leaders abused power and discriminated against oppenents.

edit: my vote was that 'It was equally good and bad'

It was a bad thing.C what people think about communism now!
If USSR would have applied a democratic system(based on the swiss system),the entire world would be communist nowadays.

It was a bad thing.C what people think about communism now!

yeah, it is true that most people only ever think of the USSR when communism is mentioned, damn annoying for me I tell ya!

ComradeDavo wrote:

yeah, it is true that most people only ever think of the USSR when communism is mentioned, damn annoying for me I tell ya!

The USSR was the first state to successfully declare itself a communist dictatorship, CD, and it set the standard for all other communist states that followed in the 20th century.

To really answer the question I'd need to ask a few of my own questions first:

1. Good/bad for whom? Some did profit and benefit from the USSR - although most of us didn't.

2. Short-term or long-term?

3. "Good" in the positive sense, or in the "well, it could have been worse" sense? If the USSR hadn't invaded Eastern Europe in 1944-45 and ousted the Germans, life probably would have been far worse for Eastern Europeans than it turned out to be under Soviet imperial occupation. I suppose that counts as a consolation...

Originally posted by calgacus
And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like.


Yeah, since the USSR has been gone, we sure have used those nukes, haven't we?

Originally posted by The Art of War



Yeah, since the USSR has been gone, we sure have used those nukes, haven't we?

The Russians still have nukes, so do the Chinese, French, English, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, and pos. N.Koreans. If you want to be that simplistic then look at the fact that, when America had nukes and no one else did, they nuked Japan twice, but they have never used them since Stalin acquired them for the USSR.

Wow.

I can't believe someone (above^) actually said "well, Stalin wasn''t really as bad as Hitler." Of course he was. He killed far more than many people are willing to admit. He killed his own military officers. He was also (along with Hitler) responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews and their expulsion from Russia, which killed hundreds more. (Fiddler on the Roof, anyone?) I suppose you'll tell me now that Mao didn't in fact kill millions of his own people either under a supposed agricultural reform in the name of Communism and the advancing perfection of humanity? They're both related, and if you like what the Soviet Republics did, you're bound to like what the People's Republic did.

I guess you can chalk it up to Clueless Europeans to reason that "at least Russian expansionism kept the Evil Imperialist Americans from usurping the Third World with their Capitalist-Slave-Labor Filth!" Sometimes I think that the Cold War brought out the worst in America, and without it the world would be a much more peaceful place. Maybe everybody would like America more, for example--the Middle East, instead of xenophobic europeans trashing us for having a system slightly more capitalistic than theirs. "I am America, destroyer of cultures."

I guess if you were alive in the 80's you would have overthrown your governments for the U.S.S.R. in order to get away from the greedy conniving Yankee Pig-Dogs? Because the way you pointed it out, Russia has always been the lesser of two evils.

I'm beginning to think that a lot of Europeans are out of touch with reality, or its history thereof...

Originally posted by calgacus


The Russians still have nukes, so do the Chinese, French, English, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, and pos. N.Koreans. If you want to be that simplistic then look at the fact that, when America had nukes and no one else did, they nuked Japan twice, but they have never used them since Stalin acquired them for the USSR. What year did the USSR get Nukes? Answer this and then explain why the US didn't go on a nuke spree. You might want to think the US would, but the facts prove they did not while they had the chance to.



Now since this was discussed back when I was in school (13 years ago) I will give you the "suppose" reason why they didn't.

The Soviet Army. LMAO :D

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
What year did the USSR get Nukes? Answer this and then explain why the US didn't go on a nuke spree. You might want to think the US would, but the facts prove they did not while they had the chance to.



Now since this was discussed back when I was in school (13 years ago) I will give you the "suppose" reason why they didn't.

The Soviet Army. LMAO :D

The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1949. Thus, the Americans had 4 years. The Korean War started in 1950, so the 1st opportunity after ww2 came too late.

The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan.

Anyway, I didn't originally say that it was the USSR's nuclear capabilities that prevent America using nukes.

Geez...why are people so hyper-sensitive?!

the soviets got nukes in 1949

the usa never had a reason to nuke anyone after nuking Japan except from the USSR and that option went out of the window when they developed nukes

Originally posted by calgacus


The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1949. Thus, the Americans had 4 years. The Korean War started in 1950, so the 1st opportunity after ww2 came too late.

The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan.

Anyway, I didn't originally say that it was the USSR's nuclear capabilities that prevent America using nukes.

Geez...why are people so hyper-sensitive?!

People get hyper-sensitive when they see someone make a non-thought-out comment like "The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan." If we had gone on a "nuke spree," we'd have been cheered on by the likes of Korea, China, Phillipines, Vietnam, and others in Asia who suffered horrors during the Japanese conquest and occupation.

Frankly, it is a supreme effort for me to keep from flaming you. If can you imagine that the United States would freely toss around nuclear weapons just for the hell of it, you have ABSOLUTELY NO ******* CLUE what we are like.

Hmm. That was a flame, wasn't it? Looks like I lost my self control. Somebody get me a nuke, I have some Iraqis I want to irradiate! :mad:

Originally posted by Switch625


People get hyper-sensitive when they see someone make a non-thought-out comment like "The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan." If we had gone on a "nuke spree," we'd have been cheered on by the likes of Korea, China, Phillipines, Vietnam, and others in Asia who suffered horrors during the Japanese conquest and occupation.

Frankly, it is a supreme effort for me to keep from flaming you. If can you imagine that the United States would freely toss around nuclear weapons just for the hell of it, you have ABSOLUTELY NO ******* CLUE what we are like.

Hmm. That was a flame, wasn't it? Looks like I lost my self control. Somebody get me a nuke, I have some Iraqis I want to irradiate! :mad:

make sure you don't forget the Cubans and the people from Pakganistan :lol:

Originally posted by calgacus

The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan.

Anyway, I didn't originally say that it was the USSR's nuclear capabilities that prevent America using nukes.

Geez...why are people so hyper-sensitive?!

I always thought a nuke spree was hundreds of nukes. Not 2, even though I know the damage they caused.

We, well I, am not "hyper-sensitive," I just was saying that, even if the USSR hadn't kept us Americans "in check" we wouldn't have nuked everyone anyway. Contrary to what you might think, we do have common sense...

''The Marxists maintain that only a dictatorship--their dictatorship of course--can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it" - Mikhail Bakunin

State Communism always has, and always will end up being a state of oppression.

People are getting "hyper-sensitive" because you are putting down the United States and right now there is a huge amount of national pride around here in the United States so if you don't want people to get "hyper-sensitive" than don't put down the United States. That is all.

Originally posted by Switch625


People get hyper-sensitive when they see someone make a non-thought-out comment like "The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan." Well this part didn't bother me. I was just wondering why the US didn't for 4 YEARS go on a Nuke spree (While no other country had any). Kind of blows the "And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like." theory out of the water.



What I really like is how almost every topic made about the USSR has to have something about the bad USA. I guess this comes from being the Winner and not having a Siberia.

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
Well this part didn't bother me. I was just wondering why the US didn't for 4 YEARS go on a Nuke spree (While no other country had any). Kind of blows the "And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like." theory out of the water.



What I really like is how almost every topic made about the USSR has to have something about the bad USA. I guess this comes from being the Winner and not having a Siberia.

Apparently after WW2, the US did have plans to begin nuclear war against Soviet Union in 1950, but had to abandon their plans when USSR got the bomb. [note I don't have any links to confirm this, but this is something I read a while ago]

You see, it takes time to build up an arsenal and make large amounts of nuclear warheads combat-ready.

Originally posted by sgrig


Apparently after WW2, the US did have plans to begin nuclear war against Soviet Union in 1950, but had to abandon their plans when USSR got the bomb. [note I don't have any links to confirm this, but this is something I read a while ago]

You see, it takes time to build up an arsenal and make large amounts of nuclear warheads combat-ready.
I read once that the moon was made of cheese [Note I don't have any links to back it up] (See anything here)



So you want me to believe was the USSR got one Nuke and the US decides to call off the "attack". Why do I say one? Because you just said it takes time to get nukes ready. If I was going to nuke someone, I wouldn't wait till they had 50 and you can bet if the US was planning it they wouldn't either. 4 years of building nukes and then decide after the USSR tested one nuke (not a ICBM at that) to not go ahead with the attack. Well I guess this then proves the US is not on a "spree"

Originally posted by Noble_Sniper
People are getting "hyper-sensitive" because you are putting down the United States and right now there is a huge amount of national pride around here in the United States so if you don't want people to get "hyper-sensitive" than don't put down the United States. That is all.

I'm really not trying to put down the USA, note the comment on the first post "maybe this is a good thing". I was rather trying to put forward the argument that the Soviet Union provided balance. (Of course the rivalry nearly ended civlization). This is an argument that many people buy (not necessarily including myself).

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
Well this part didn't bother me. I was just wondering why the US didn't for 4 YEARS go on a Nuke spree (While no other country had any). Kind of blows the "And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like."

To say that this "kind of blows it out of the water" is an absurdity in the extreme, even if sprig is wrong. It's equivalent to saying that a 25 year old man will never have any children because he hasn't had any. Passion really seems to reduce the quality of arguments. The reality is that America (or any power) probably would have used nukes at some point had they been able to get away with it. I think I remember hearing that only the Chinese prevented them using them in Vietnam (I COULD BE WRONG). The main reason is that America is not a monarchy, it frequently changes ruler and it is surely likely that one of these might have been tempted to use them again. But argument should not be interpreted too harshly.

originally posted by noble_sniper
People are getting "hyper-sensitive" because you are putting down the United States and right now there is a huge amount of national pride around here in the United States so if you don't want people to get "hyper-sensitive" than don't put down the United States. That is all.


It's nothing to do with the American people. A frequent source of misunderstanding derives from the fact that Europeans do not equate peoples with governments as much as Americans tend to. When W. Europeans attack American foreign policy, they take it for granted that it is the government and not the people that will be understood as being attacked. This might not be the case with Arabs or others though. The comment about the nukes was not meant as a put down of the American people.

In Europe, what is often resented is America's position as a champion of rich capitalist organizations (I do not resent this BTW), not the stars and stripes or America's love of freedom. America has the same image for people who do hate immoral corporations and ultra-capitalist economics as Austria and Russia had for early-19th century German liberals. If some people hate the Americans as a people, it is for different reasons. I think Europeans are guilty, though, of forgetting their debt to America. Without America, all of Europe would be run either by fascist regimes or by communist dictators. Stalin or Hiler and their successors!

The first post was designed to open a debate, not attack the American people. I admire American achievements and many of their values; most people do. But most of the world is not American, and America's success in exporting its culture and economic philosophy make it resented. The Americans who say that the USA gets harsh press are probably right, but this is because America is so powerful, not because it is American.

thank you for clearing that up calgacus, but I think I will back out of this argument, you are clearly a better arguer than myself.

Originally posted by calgacus
To say that this "kind of blows it out of the water" is an absurdity in the extreme, even if sprig is wrong. It's equivalent to saying that a 25 year old man will never have any children because he hasn't had any. Passion really seems to reduce the quality of arguments. The reality is that America (or any power) probably would have used nukes at some point had they been able to get away with it. I think I remember hearing that only the Chinese prevented them using them in Vietnam (I COULD BE WRONG). The main reason is that America is not a monarchy, it frequently changes ruler and it is surely likely that one of these might have been tempted to use them again. But argument shouldn't not be interpreted too harshly. I will aswer point by point.

1. What is equivatent to a "spree" (preventing it from nuking every country it felt like)
2.Opinions without backing will reduce the quality of arguements as well.
3. The US president prevented the US from using nukes in Vietnam.
4. A US president cannot just hit a button and send off a nuke without a valid reason. Only in a time of War/National Emergency does he have the power. Tempting or not it doesn't work that way. And on top of that most of the US wouldn't have it. The only way most Americans would even think of using one was if the US was attacked by a nuke. Did you see a nuke dropped on Afganistan? If there has every been a time (in modern times) that the US would had ever drop another one that would had been it. Strange the "War Mongering Americans" didn't.

I see it this way: no USSR= no Stalin= no traumatic industrialization= Nazi victory in Europe. Third Reich... Soviet Union... which one was worse? That's subjective. Trade one "evil empire" for another.

Was the USSR a good thing or a bad thing? It was a real thing, and real things are flawed (meaning both.)

Regarding the U.S. plans to invade USSR? I can't imagine that being anything more than one of a zillion contingency plans, which although drawn up would never in a million years get the greenlight from any president.
There was even a contingency plan drawn up to invade Canada! Making plans makes good sense. It allows for immediate implementation of strategy.

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
I will aswer point by point.

1. What is equivatent to a "spree" (preventing it from nuking every country it felt like)
2.Opinions without backing will reduce the quality of arguements as well.
3. The US president prevented the US from using nukes in Vietnam.
4. A US president cannot just hit a button and send off a nuke without a valid reason. Only in a time of War/National Emergency does he have the power. Tempting or not it doesn't work that way. And on top of that most of the US wouldn't have it. The only way most Americans would even think of using one was if the US was attacked by a nuke. Did you see a nuke dropped on Afganistan? If there has every been a time (in modern times) that the US would had ever drop another one that would had been it. Strange the "War Mongering Americans" didn't.




Here my answers to your question:

1. A spree not always mean 10, 20 or 100. 5 elephants running in
a city will be treated as a swarm but 5 bees won't. If America would hae be the only one to possess nuclear bombs they would have used in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba (ok maybe not this one because it's so close). Thats a spree for me.

2. What do you mean by that? Do you expect him to have proofs? Where on a internet forum so I don't think any of us can provide valid proofs.

3. Could be. But he also permit the most inhumans wepons to be uses (napalm, toxic chemicals, gases, etc) and you tell me that that he would not have use nuclear weapons ensuring a quick winning and ending all the protestations in the whole world against the USA?

4. Your argument on Afghanistan not valid. How many american soldiers have die in the past 6 months? Not many. Is american people protest about that war? Certainly not. I agree that america will use a nukes only in a war where they loses many troops.

Originally posted by tomberry
Your argument on Afghanistan not valid. How many american soldiers have die in the past 6 months? Not many. Is american people protest about that war? Certainly not. I agree that america will use a nukes only in a war where they loses many troops.

So for the US to bring out the Nukes it will have to lose troops first? 3000 people dead doesn't count? I find your arguement on Afghanistan invalid. And that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun


So for the US to bring out the Nukes it will have to lose troops first? 3000 people dead doesn't count? I find your arguement on Afghanistan invalid. And that's my opinion.

Well yes. If not, what the use of an army? Or, at least, it has have a serious treat. The conflict in Afghanistan is hardly a war. The american do not fear to lose it and they are searching for Ben Laden so throwing a nuke would be a bad idea. As I said, no country will use a nuke lightly. The examples I said were majors conflics not skirmish agains poor equippeds troops.

To get back to the original question, I think the USSR, as was the CSSR, the GDR, etc. etc. were bad things.
I am a sympathizer to the communistic/marxistic ideology. But I must confirm that this is an ideology, much like a philosophy (perhaps even something close to a religion), but not a valid form of governing a state.
Trying to carry through a communistic state as the USSR or the PRC automatically leads to the loss of freedom, and to oppression. Opponents of this system would become dangerous and will be jailed or even murdered.
The only proper way of governing a state is the way the people want it. And in most cases, that's a democratic government. Much like Winston Churchill, I hate democracy, I think it is a horrible government form, and yet, it's the best one ever tried, and I have no idea of how we could do it better.

Again, I sympathize with the communistic ideas, especially the attempt to eliminate social injustice and capitalism, but on the other hand, that is not purely communistic.

Now to several issues of this thread.

I personally doubt that the United States of America, at any time, sympathized with any "nuke spree".
I am a strickt opponent of the current presidents foreign policy, I am a strickt opponent to the presidents policy in general (which is not to be misunderstood as a strickt opponent of the U.S., I am a great admirer of the American people), and I would have been a very strickt opponent to former presidents as well, especially such as Reagan, or Bush I.
But I doubt, with all my heart, that George W. Bush, as disgusting as I think he is, would actually consider of using nuclear weapons, in his "War Against Terror", or in any other war.

Furthermore, I think everyone agrees with me that a state killing its own people somewhere went the wrong way.
Every state killing (or executing) its own people by law or not should be found guilty of human rights abuse. That presently (presently!) includes Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, the United States of America, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, Russia, any other, you name it. Counting those states who legally, illegaly, or in any way kill, no matter of what cause, is unfortunately impossible.
Just for the record, I include Germany as well. There is no death penalty in Germany (fortunately), but the governments agreement to join the war on terror is enough. Fighting a war includes killing people, and this killing is approved by the government.
Yes this is pacifist.

Originally posted by calgacus
The reason I'm opening this thread is because the Soviet Union seems to have become

fashionable in Europe, loads of young people wearing T-shirts with "CCCP" or the "USSR"

printed on the front.

The beginning of the Soviet Union promised a world communist state and every poor

person in the world was filled with hope. After a while, it began to lose track of it's

original revolutionary aims and they ended up with Stalin as leader, with all the nasty

things that this man was responsible for. But he did manage to defeat the Nazis, which

was possibly a greater evil to the world.
And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from

nuking every country it felt like. And it provided opposition to America's form of

capitalism in the 3rd world. Now that it has gone, America is free to do what it wants.

But maybe this is a good thing.

My short answer to the question is: The SU was probably good for world
peace, but very, very bad for those who had live in it, or its satellite
states.

First, the good: The existence of the SU, and its hostile attitude
towards the West did several things.

1) It kept the US from reverting to isolationism after WWII.
Hence the "kept US in check" is nonsense. As evidence, I
cite the demilitarization of the US from 1945-48,
reversed only after the combination of the coup in
Czechoslovakia and the Berlin blockade.

2) It (IMO) spurred Western Europe towards cooperation
and semi-unification (EEC, European Union). I am of
course assuming that most Europeans consider these
good things.

3) "Brushfire" wars were a lot less of a problem, because niether
superpower wanted them to get out of hand. After all a general war
was not at all in anyone's interest since it was *way* too likely
to go nuclear (tactical if not strategic).

The bad:

The Soviet regime used Communism as a window dressing, but never
attempted to establish anything like what Marx and Engels
envisioned. It was a police state, run for the exclusive benefit
of the rulers, pure and simple. There's a book called "Lenin's Tomb"
that totally (and convincingly) debunks the myth that Lenin was any
better than Stalin (Molotov said that "compared to Lenin, Stalin
was a lamb"), and lays out the horrors of the Soviet period better
than I could. Also, it is amusing to note the foriegn policy
of the commissars bore a striking resemblance to that of the tsars...

BTW, I agree that Stalin, bad as he was, was a lesser evil than
Hitler. Eastern Europeans might take issue, though...


Misc:

I am not real happy with the near unrestricted capitalism here,
because it has the same flaw that Marx's Communism had: It ignores
human nature. Marx failed to see that people need incentives to
be productive (i.e. work for the common good), and provides none
in his system. Capitalism assumes the system will be self-correcting,
ignoring the fact that once someone gets successful, they could use
their position to crush the competition, and eliminate the corrective
element that competition is supposed to bring (i.e. J.D. Rockefeller, Sr.
and Bill Gates).

Where do you get "America is free to do as it wants"? It simply
isn't true. If it were, our forces would already be in Iraq (Can you
say "tar baby"?). Both Bush Sr. and Clinton worked with Europe.
Even Bush, Jr. is finding he can't always have it his own way.
In fact, some commentators here claim we give Europe far too much
say. I suspect if one split the difference between the quoted
perception and the American commentators, something like the real
situation might emerge.

I suspect that one thing that Europeans don't like about US
foriegn policy is its lack of consistency. It has whipsawed about
over the last 30 years (Nixon/Ford -> Carter -> Reagan/Bush Sr. ->
Clinton -> Bush Jr.), while a change in government in Western Europe
seems to have a much less dramatic effect (with the possible exception
of Mrs. Thatcher). It would complicate one's life if you can't
be sure of the long term plans of your biggest ally...

For What It's Worth.

Wilkey

The Soviets were better than the Tsars, because, despite being a dictatoral their propaganda forced them to provid some level of Welfare, and Health Care to their poor.
The truth id that when a socialist goverment becomes dictatoral they are transformed into extreme rightests.

Anyone that would vote for the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union saying that previous leaders did a "good thing" -- you've obviously then cannot see totalitarian powers for what they are.

Voted equally good as bad, but that is just because IMHO there are some good points and a lot of bad points.

First of all, in the days of the Tsars Russia was a backward country with a totalitarian and oppressing regime. The 1917 revolution was a successfull attempt to overthrow that regime and start something new and promising.

The implementation of the idea however was very bad and the likelyhood of succes very low anyway. This because Communism was developed with the situation in the Western industrializing countries in mind. Laborers at that time were exploited by capitalist regimes. In Russia / SU industrialization only really started after the revolution and communist ideology was used to sell forced industrialization to the equally exploited labor force.

The second thing that went really wrong here was the aftermath of WWI were many foreign countries attempted to turn back the revolution and reinstall a tsarist regime and these attempts were almost successfull. Also the call to power from Stalin did not do a lot of good to communist ideas.

IMHO all of this resulted in enormous paranoia in the SU and a fear of everything being communist in Western Europe.

Would nazism have been victorious if the SU had not existed? Without the SU nazism might not have existed itself IMHO.

What about the development in nuclear weapons? After WWII Russia / SU had been almost destroyed three times within 30 years, add to this paranoia thinking and bingo. The whole of the Cold War is about fear for the other party preparing a surprise.

The process of change in Russia going on now is still a difficult one and it is hard to embrace the now available liberty if so little of its advantages are at hand for the population.

Of course Russia advanced after the Communists took over, but does that mean that they are any more powerful now than they would have been if they had a republican form of government?

I won't say Czar Nicholas was any treasure, but when you compare it to Stalin's purges, I think a fair republic would be better.

If Russia was good or bad depends of course on where you are looking from. For Eastern Europe, it was a catastrophe.

As Beammeuppy says, I don´t think nazism would have made a very big influence on the world without communism (maybe something like Franco´s regime in Spain), so Soviet was bad for Western Europe, too.

For USA, on the other hand, it was a good thing. They might well have stayed isolationist, meaning inefficient production and thus a worse competitive position than Europe or Japan. American and Soviet influence in third-world countries (with both sides financing guerilla wars) meant they effectively hindered these countries from developing (again, making USA even more competitive).

The United States was attacked by Imperial Japan, though. How can you say that the USSR was a good thing? The only good thing, theorhetically, is the technological advancement we made during the Cold War.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Of course Russia advanced after the Communists took over, but does that mean that they are any more powerful now than they would have been if they had a republican form of government?

I won't say Czar Nicholas was any treasure, but when you compare it to Stalin's purges, I think a fair republic would be better.

In general terms I agree, yet a republican form probably would not have had a good change of success either. Compare the Weimar republic in Germany in the 20'ies which did not survive. Of course there are reasons for that as well, what I am trying to say is that adoption of a great idea not neccesarely will result in real life success. The Democratization process in Western Europe has taken 1,5 century (1848 - now) and I am not sure if we can be happy with all of its results, as the US systems does have its flaws.

The Poetin regime isn't very democratic but it seems to get things done. It however is a leader based regime and therefore highly dependant on the mood of individuals. I hope for the Russians that it will evolve in a more democratic form eventually where they can enjoy the real benefits.

Czar Nicholas vs. Comrad Joseph: on a badness scale from 1 to 10 my vote is 9 for the Czar and a perfect 10 for our Comrad.

Monarchy vs. Republic. The constitutional Monarchy as Holland and many other Western European countries have is as democratic as republican forms as in Germany. Our Queen has no significant power at all and mostly makes the press for ceremonial and family affairs. Hm, I could start a thread on that as well.

Beammeuppy wrote:

Compare the Weimar republic in Germany in the 20'ies which did not survive.

While it didn't survive, the Weimar Republic actually did manage to do a lot of good for Germans. It was the victim of bad press, and the nationalists blamed it for the defeat of 1918 (when in fact the Reichswehr was really defeated in the field by the Allies, a fact the nationalists willfully ignored). Stresemann for instance stabilized the war-battered economy, convinced the French to withdraw from the Ruhr in 1923 and was eventually able throughout the 1920s to negate most of the punitive aspects of the Versailles Treaty, effectively nullifying the reparations through the Dawes Plan. One of the few articles Stresemann couldn't overturn from the Versailles Treaty was articles 231-247, laying out exclusive blame for the whole war and all its consequences on Germany alone. This was political ammunition for the nationalists, and Stresemann's death only forestalled the inevitable rightward turn in German elections as Germany entered the 1930s.

The image of Weimar Germany being impotent and ineffective is a myth, one created and fostered by German nationalists of the interbellum years in their bids to gain power. When Gallieni stopped and drove back the German assault on Paris in the first months of the war in 1914, von Moltke is supposed to have said that Germany had lost its one chance to win the war, and all it could hope for now was a negotiated settlement. His successor, Falkenhayn, eventually reached similar conclusions. Only Hindenburg and Ludendorf held on to the belief that a complete German victory was possible until September 1918. The German people were never told of these doubts, however, getting a steady stream of optimistic news reports about great victories throughout the war, until very suddenly being told in September that things weren't going very well. They associated Weimar with that defeat, and the nationalists played that political card well.

This is relevant to this thread because we will never know what Russia may have been like under another Tsar or under a Kerensky government. It is true that the Soviet people did see progress under the USSR in the 20th century, but I would counter with the questions 1. at what cost? (i.e., millions dead in the gulags and massive pollution) and 2. would Russians have gotten farther under a non-communist government?

History represents the way we look and interpret events in the past and hopefully learn something for the future.

What I am trying to say is that government forms in itself can be promising / good but that they can also be very vulnerable to external circumstances if in an unstable environment, and that is what I am reading as well from your post on the Weimar republic! btw did you write it yourself, if so become a history writer!

On Russia in 1917 and afterwards, the combination of a non-fitting ideology and a selfish dictator were the worst that could happen. Could an "ideal" leader have implemented at once the "ideal" government form for the real benefit of all? I doubt because it might be to big a gap from where they were coming from. I know this does not sound very idealistic, well it is real life.

Originally posted by calgacus


The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1949. Thus, the Americans had 4 years. The Korean War started in 1950, so the 1st opportunity after ww2 came too late.

The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan.


MacArthur was fired after he wanted to nuke China in the Korean war, right?

As for the Soviet Union it had good and bad layers as well, maybe a bit more bad than good. It was an experiment for a new political and economic structure with a certain ideology that never existed before. It failed, though, but I think the world could learn a lot from it. Too bad for those people who lived in the communist countries at that time (and now!) but too bad for the free world also because they have to find other enemies! ;) So it is really a multiple question (good for whom, good in what exact period etc.)

Well, talking about the free world, we can say that Dubya is an experiment also. I hope it won't take as long as the Soviet Union...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

People seem to be saying 'good for whom' and 'depends on how you look at it'. I think it is obvious that what calgacus means is if the SU was good In your opinion. Quite simple, DO YOU think it was a good thing.

And would the people writing in yellow please STOP IT! It is difficult to read.

I believe people miss the point.
the soviet union create great focus....

a focus which give birth to NATO
a focus that unified western europe
a focus that begun the space exploration
a focus which saw man on moon, and modular space station
a focus for non european power to bargain on

India, pakistan, china, korea, middle east all modernisation their power due to soivet incident. It ended european imperialism together with WWII.

they didn't do good for themselve,
but without them, we would become lazy (like now)
I would perfer soviet than terrorist keeping us alert!

I don't believe the SU ended European Imperialism, It was ended partly because of ww2 and mostly because of the democratic, equality and freedom for all type of thinking.

The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

The major Red Menace today is the evil Red Chinese, who kill their own citizens by the hundreds of thousands. Further, their evil leader have publically stated and subsequently confirmed that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons and any force necessary to regain the phyisical land of Tiawan, even if it means killing every last inhabitant. This will escalate almost immediately if the members of the UN move to offically recognize Taiwan.

So the SU was a cesspool of evil, as are the evil Red Chinese. This does not condemn every citizen of these nations... in fact, the average people are pretty good overall. The governments and the leaders are the ones that belong on (or in) the ash heap of history.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:

Originally posted by starlifter
The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:

Your opinion is based on (1) your perception and (2) the information that your government and the media presents. I grew up in a communist country. I would have been stupid to buy all the propaganda rubbish about the west that my government presented. It was the same in the west. Governments (any kind) always love using a threat to keep the home attention away of real problems. In the socialism we were prepared for an imperalist invasion. In the west people were prepared for a communist attack. For whom was it beneficial? You? Me? I don't think so.

If someone buys all the goverment propaganda rubbish that's too bad. Sorry guys, the world is not black and white, in fact 99 pct of it is grey. ;)

Originally posted by starlifter
The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

The major Red Menace today is the evil Red Chinese, who kill their own citizens by the hundreds of thousands. Further, their evil leader have publically stated and subsequently confirmed that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons and any force necessary to regain the phyisical land of Tiawan, even if it means killing every last inhabitant. This will escalate almost immediately if the members of the UN move to offically recognize Taiwan.

So the SU was a cesspool of evil, as are the evil Red Chinese. This does not condemn every citizen of these nations... in fact, the average people are pretty good overall. The governments and the leaders are the ones that belong on (or in) the ash heap of history.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:


Wow I hope you are either very young or you just post this comment for fun. Viewing the Soviet Union as a goulag from the beginning to the end is nonsense.

Originally posted by akinkhoo
I believe people miss the point.
the soviet union create great focus....

a focus which give birth to NATO
a focus that unified western europe
a focus that begun the space exploration
a focus which saw man on moon, and modular space station
a focus for non european power to bargain on

India, pakistan, china, korea, middle east all modernisation their power due to soivet incident. It ended european imperialism together with WWII.

they didn't do good for themselve,
but without them, we would become lazy (like now)
I would perfer soviet than terrorist keeping us alert!

Hehehehe. I believe that you are looking at it with glasses made of Darwin’s “theory of evolution”... That progress comes in the form of adaptation, as a response to struggle.

I think such a view is utter reductionism, because it applies to natural biological processes of development. In terms of sociological growth, on the other hand, the human ability to think is a way to avoid that path and allow human race to develop through rationalism, instead of suffering.

Of course, I’m speaking potentials, and I don’t deny that SOME challenge does seen to trigger a faster development… but to say that it is a sine qua non condition is also not accurate. Also, if that were true, the harder the conditions, the more developed would be the society, what would make Africa’s or Middle Eastern’s countries the greatest nations in the earth.

Way I see things, Americans are not “lazy” or “lacking focus” because they “miss their greatest foe”. I see it quite the other way around – a nation in its peak, that had defeated all its serious opposition and is strong in its leadership.

When I see people saying that it’s crumbling and that it has lost it’s way, I think it’s quite a contradiction, because it shows more and more that it’s living a true golden age. AND in a period of peace, because its present wars are no more than skirmishes, as someone have pointed out before.

Regarding the theme of the thread, there are some considerations I would like to add and/or reinforce:

First, and I don’t think it was stressed enough so far, what happened in SU wasn’t by a long shot the idea of Marx… I use to say that he would jump out of his grave if he could know what people have made with his ideas. In Marx’s view, socialism would develop slowly, as a natural response to people’s indignation with the abuses of capitalism. And the communism would be just a momentary step until the development of the socialism – this one, being the ultimate goal.

Problem is that the next step was never taken, and the presumably “temporary government” that should be created just as a way to “return the power and the means of production to the people” has become permanent… a never completed transition, which’s flaws and imperfections have charged a terrible price to it’s own citizens.

In all those senses, the SU was an aberration… what does not mean at all that communism or socialism per si are intrinsically bad, or that they mean dictatorships. Those concepts are not linked. And if one day it comes to exist again, I hope it follows Marx steps of development to increase its probability of success.

Also, there’s one thing that always bothers me when people speaks of communism/socialism and capitalism… its when they say that communism is a curse for its citizens.

It is that people tend to think about the most developed capitalist nations, and forget the poor ones, when they compare. See, there is a reason why the world was once classified as 1th, 2th and 3th world, and that reason is the fact that the socialist world never developed living conditions that could match the ones in the rich nations, but were all able to provide better life than the poor nations.

Only after communism has imploded we were able to find in, like, Cuba, conditions that are as bad as the ones that always existed in the northeast of Brazil. To this day, I never saw such bad conditions in the old European Communist Block, even with the wars they faced with the crumbling of the SU.

And I don’t think anyone is as bad as some African Nations, which have the lowest grades on “human development” in the globe.

If we want to compare both economical blocks, we shouldn’t focus on what’s good in one and bad in the other, but to look at both as a whole. And, as, no doubt, there is far more people poor than there is rich people in the world, I wouldn’t say that capitalism is exactly a success. I just think that it’s successful extreme have much more influence than it’s failed extreme, and, as the first is the leading block, capitalism goes on.

I don’t think that capitalism has proved to be “good”, and equally I don’t think that communism has proved to be “bad”. Both could work; it just happens that in the given conditions, just one did. Too bad for us, that now will be stuck with one single option for quite some time.

I am capitalist, always have been, and that’s the orientation of my homeland, so you can see it’s not a biased opinion.

One more thing: I hear many of you people say that SU was the “red threat” and things like that. Well, USA is not Mother Theresa as well. It has quite a share of skeletons in the closet too. Its involvement in the overthrow of democracy in Brazil (and other South American lands) is as bad as any rule SU has imposed in its vicinities, the fact that they didn’t take the administrative control over us does not makes them less guilty (before people say that USA never done that, I say look at the thread “reasons for the crashing in WTC”, where I answered exactly that). To us, at least, the noxious part of USA influence (not all were bad) was much more present and real than the hypothetical threat of SU invasion.

Now, to give straight answers to the question:

Soviet Union – good or bad? BAD. Those who kills their own are BAD, BAD, BAD, no doubt. In that sense, USA is BY FAR better.

But it’s not all good as well, contrary to what some seen to think.

Regards :) .

This is almost as rough an argument as anyone pertaining to religion.......

do you worship Stalin?

(i voted neither)

hehe though if you think about it if they had won the Cold War (i can't see them doing it but if they had) A similar thread would be probably out there on whether or not Capitalism and the United States were good things.

Originally posted by SKILORD
This is almost as rough an argument as anyone pertaining to religion.......

do you worship Stalin?

(i voted neither)

Is this for me? If so, i can only think you didn't read my post carefully.

If not, sorry.

regards. :)

i just saw the intense argueing i didn't actually read anything that closely

em...there seems to be quite an even split.

Stalin was much, much worse than Hitler.
Between 1917 and 1953 66,000,000 people were killed in the USSR that does not include the 30,000,000 known to have died in the second world war.

How many people did Hitler kill? (I don't know, I don't have the figures here, but it was probably around 7-10 million if you include all the german soldiers sent to their death in WWII).

But that is because hitler was only in power for a short period- if he had won WWII the true figure of people killed by the Nazis would have been far greater, especialy in the East.
I guess they are both just as bad as each other- being two sides of the same coin- Any form of political extremism is bad, because it takes political power out of the hands of the people.

Although democratic socialism is something that America and Europe are going to have to look at in the future, if ever the gap between rich and poor countries is ever going to be adressed (The UN does something of the sort by diverting money from the rich countries of europe to the poorer ones, for example spain and the eastern european countries).

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
Although democratic socialism is something that America and Europe are going to have to look at in the future,

Several points:

1 - Stalin was not a Democratic socialist.

3 - Democratic socialism is not extreme.

2 - Many European countries already have long histories of democratic socialist government, political influence, and strong socialist influences on economic organisation, such as welfare states.

Yes sorry, I didn't make my self clear perhaps I should have underlined Democratic.
Yes stalin wasn't a democratic socailist, he was an evil tyrant- What I meant was, sticking to the middle path (democratic capitalism, with leanings towards Anarcho-supercapitalism- I.E. reduced powers of the state, increased freedom for business) is perhaps not a good direction to continue to follow.

Am I right in saying in American politics that traditionaly the republicans are for lower taxes and reduced social services while the Democrats are more directed towards higher taxes and increased suport for the poor? I always get the two mixed up.

Well in England traditionaly it has always been the conservatives who offer greater freedoms to business (lower taxes etc.. mean business can opperate at higher profit levels) while reducing public spending. The labour government has always been the oposite- it was the government of the workers of the UK.

The thing is, a socialist government always fairs badly in isolation, because if taxes are high, it reduces prosperity and drives jobs and manufacturing abroard to countries with lower taxes. The gap between rich and poor has to be made smaller and the only way to do that is for governments to work together, not in competition with each other.
Anarcho-supercapitalism is the kind of thing you read about in science fiction- the rise of the "megacorporations"; but it is the natural development of continued economic competion between the superpowers, and there are many reasons why it is a very bad thing; Cheif among those reasons is the Enviroment, the ice caps Are melting, there is documetary evidence of it. The oceans are going to rise, in some places the world is going to get hotter and wetter, while in others it is going to get hotter and Dryer, and with weather patterns 1,000,000s of years old getting disrupted there will be new deserts formed in locations that are currently highly populated. (with the disruption of the gulf stream england is actualy going to get colder- people forget that were are on a similar latitude to Moscow).

This is not conjecture, it is going to happen, and what does George W Bush say on the matter? "hell I don't mind, last year global warming saved me 20billion dollars on heating Alaska! As it is global warming is a good thing for America, but if that changes, then we will have to think about doing something about it".
(perhaps you don't belive me, but thats what he said).

We need to reduce industrial production, we need to reduce consumpition of consumer goods- we need to use our cars less.
Global warming is not something Adam Smith took in to consideration; the very means to reduce the threat to the enviroment goes directly against the driving forces of Capitalism. What the governments of the world need to do is engineer a global economic slow-down, with greater care taken to provide for the people who will loose thier jobs .
What America (by which I mean the government of America- and its driving force- american business) refuses to see is that the only way of reducing the impact of the human race on the enviorment is through international Socialist style reforms- because continued economic growth will only lead to increased impact on the enviroment and ultimately disaster.

Socialism in Russia failed because it was not the right time and place for socialism the soviets just weren't progresive enough, and because of that their socailism took the wrong form. The economy in Civilization is not a very good model of reality, mainly because all you have to do to get rid of polution is build "mass transport systems" and magic "recycling centers" what civ doesn't show is the dificulty of getting people to use these things, and also the huge cost inherent in the gearing down of the economy that would be involved in reducing industrial production.

The time for socailism is Now and soon- because there is a good chance that the rainforests are reaching saturation point, there are fears that there is going to become a point where they just can't function any more, like a lung breathing in tainted air- there will come a day when the whole system fails- and by then we had better find a way to go some where else.

The world of tomorrow will either be a hell of desertsand swamps, or it will be a limbo of unemployment and impoverishment for all. Neither sound very nice, but thats the thing about choice; You can make one or the other, but if you continue to belive that there is no need to make a choice, you will find that time and fate have made it for you.

O.K. this is a bit off subject, but I think its relevant in that it adresses the real question "Is socialism possible, benificial and did the USSR prove that socailism can't work?" to which I would reply, yes socialism is possible, but not in the form developed by the USSR and as such the failure of that particular form of socailism means nothing.

Originally posted by akinkhoo
I believe people miss the point.
the soviet union create great focus....

a focus which give birth to NATO
a focus that unified western europe
a focus that begun the space exploration
a focus which saw man on moon, and modular space station
a focus for non european power to bargain on

India, pakistan, china, korea, middle east all modernisation their power due to soivet incident. It ended european imperialism together with WWII.

they didn't do good for themselve,
but without them, we would become lazy (like now)
I would perfer soviet than terrorist keeping us alert!

Of course the good of a couple of these is debatable. Most obviously for the 50% or so Western Europeans who are eurosceptics the 'unifying' of Europe is a profoundly negative consequence.

Yours

Ross

Sometimes it is great fun to read threads, and this was one of them.

Interesting and insiteful posts from all angles, well done folks.

For my money, it was terrible, a regime of oppression and slavery, even if there were good residuals, millions of Russians and hundreds of other racial groups suffered for decades in a system that seemed to have no end, nor little interests in the rights of man, to which I believe should be put above ANY state.

A change from the Czar was certainly needed, but, unfortunatly, Lenin was the man best able to undermine the weak Kerinsky government, and replace it with his "rule by terror", and his ideas that only HE and his cronies knew the right thing to do, the ultimate example of letting intellectual know-it-alls having supreme power, they quicky forget the human equastion, and go for some "greater good', or "supreme ideal", that only they can see or define.

Yes, Stalin did pull the Russians out of centuries of backwardness, with an ironfist that often struck at the innocent far more often then the guilty.

It's also true that the Soviets had several amazing scientific triumphs, like the first orbiting sattelite, and the first human in space, but they were never able to follow up, as free thinking and ideas weren't readily encouraged.

As for the Soviets preventing the US from launching nukes, the idea is foolish, from a technical standpoint, in 1949, when the Russians detonated their nuclear bomb (made from stolen US plans, this is confirmed in the KGB archive, they researched nothing), they lacked a delivery system for it (they were frantically trying to copy the US B-29, which they eventually did, as the Tu-4) untill the mid 50s, and the plane that could deliever it was a sitting duck for interceptors ( the US had moved on to the B-36, then the B-47, and eventually the B-52, all partially or fully jet propelled, while the Russians still had to use Tu-4s).

The Soviet ability to hit the US with Nukes was not a real threat until the balistic missle age of the 1960s, so the premise of "mad" in the 50s is not sound (the Russians could hit Europe, however, a poltically undesirable postion for the US).

The Soviets were DIRECTLY behind the Korean war, and helped heavily in both China and Vietnam, all areas that the US is "blamed for", yet can be layed directly on the Kremlin's door.
What would have happened had South Vietnam not fallen?
Eventually, the regimes would become law abiding and democractic (using South Korea as a model), and would be pressing for union with the poor and corrupt north, instead of the 25 years of poverty and privation that the North won by kicking the US out, some "victory".

Next we can look at the middle east, the Soviets were major arms suppliers to many Arab states, well as sick regimes like Pol Pot's pathet lou (sp?) in Cambodia, were Kmer killed Kmer by the millions!
Or the troubles caused by the Soviets in the sub sahara, and in places like Etheopia and Somalia, all of this was helped along by the Soviets in their game of power politics with the US (who are also guilty of playing along, to the detriment of millions in the affected areas).

The cold war also saw the US suporting disgusting regimes, as long as they wern't connected to the Kremlin, a hateful and hurtful thing to behold, and a disgrace to the wonderful ideals of the United States of America, all brought on by the cold war.

The only good thing about the Soviet Union was it's end.

Good ridence to bad rubbish.

Soviets were neither i will say, I disagree with big governments which is why i can't say they were good but they kept the US from crawling back into it's bottle of isolationism.

But i don't like socialism, it returs to the fantasy where we can all go about and let the government take care of us and noone is motivated to work. Taxes should be low, business encouraged. If i remember correctly, after converting to socialism a European nation (Sweden maybe i dunno) saw enormous rise in the homeless (jobless?) rate.

It doesn't work, may the US survive as Europe plunges herself headfirst into this madness and not decide to follow.

Even if it means picking up the old isolationist bottle again.

The only good thing about the Soviet Union was it's end.

The SU was needed to compete with the US. The two polar world is much better than the one polar we have now. I don't think the US would dictate the world what to do if the SU kept on existing.

Talking of Stalin and other bad guys who killed really lots of people, one should remember that if it's not for them, the result of the ww2 might have failed to be the same.

I'm not trying to speak in support of Stalin. I would not like to live in the SU in 30s. But Soviet history is not only Stalin. The same applies to America: killing Indians and oppression of people whose color of skin is not white does not cover the whole history of America as well.

The Soviets were DIRECTLY behind the Korean war, and helped heavily in both China and Vietnam, all areas that the US is "blamed for", yet can be layed directly on the Kremlin's door.

The SU was blamed for Afghanistan. Who stood behind the opposing troops? Need a hint? Should it have not been so, probably we would not have got Sept. 11.

I happened to watch a Mr. Turner's documentary about the ww2. I was shocked. I never thought the history could be revised in such a way. What he told had nothing to do with what really took place. And I've seen many films where brave Americans fought against ever-drunken and dumb Soviets. Guys, that's propaganda. That's so ridiculous to watch.

I suggest we should not be so categoric. The SU and US are equally bad/good.

I sugest you reread my post more carefully, especially towards the end.

I sugest you reread my post more carefully, especially towards the end.

Yeah, I did it before posting. I was not aimed at contradicting you. Just stressed some points that seem important to me.

One more point about science. We were behind America after ww2 because of the war. But it didn't last long. I think both countries were neck and neck by the end of the 50s.

As to the 'stolen' A-Bomb plans, maybe it was so though I haven't heard about it. I know there were a number of R&D centres that were busy developing an A-Bomb. And I always believed it was created without anybody's help or plans.

Soviets were really strong in military production. For instance, our aircraft (SU) and tanks (T-82, if I'm not mistaken) are still considered to be one of the best in the world.

Talking of the SU you should not forget such benefits as free education and health service. Education was also known to be very good. The illiteracy did not exist at all.

Once I came across one article in some newspaper quoting an American expert as saying that in the 70s he was afraid that the Soviet economy might turn out to be more effective than American one. He said he did not feel sure about the outcome of the struggle between the 2 big ones, 'coz Soviets really were a success.

About A-bombs, the KGB confirmed it, the same with bombers.

Certainly the USSR was quite powerful at one time, but it's economy collasped, hopefully a better Russia will come from it.

As for a bi-polar world, I prefer a great power world, MORE then two countries would certainly be better.

As for a bi-polar world, I prefer a great power world, MORE then two countries would certainly be better.

Good point. I do hope it will be so soon.

well it is a hard question, bu ti guess it was bad, i could had been good if kruschev (bad spellin) had been alowed to chnage plans and produce consumer goods instead of so many nukes and heavy industry, then the system would had been better, well if the europeans like the USSR........i am going to move to germany! ^_^ they are making a european union, change the blue in their flag to red and.........there is still time !

well it is a hard question, bu ti guess it was bad, i could had been good if kruschev (bad spellin) had been alowed to chnage plans and produce consumer goods instead of so many nukes and heavy industry, then the system would had been better

A lot has been told of the weaknesses of the Soviet economy. If the oil prices had been stable during the 80s, the SU might have survived. Who knows... Too vulnerable. No export income means a lack of consumer goods. It was impossible to spare money on military.

ok lets look at it in this way, look at china, it is almost as old as teh USSR by now, and its history had problems like the USSR, but yet they dont, they moved away form the soviet way, they have some capitalist idaes now, but not fully, i bet tath w/ in a few years china will be a major economic boom, even bigger than japan was some years ago, and then having so much money their military will be bigger..............

I can't see any 'Soviet' way. Because from the 70s it was obvious that it's much easier to sell oil and gas and other resources than finished goods which required some efforts to be pushed into the market.

The Chinese managed to change the system combining both socialism and capitalism. They had a very cheap workforce and very low starting position. They also reduced taxes in some provinces and began encouraging exports and investments.

Probably, we could do better if Soviet bosses had not been so ridiculously conservative. We've got enough resources, both natural and human, well-educated labour force etc. etc. But...

i agree w/ the conservativism (except the last soviet one)

I voted a bad thing


The point about CCCP shirts becoming popular in Europe is so true as well, it makes me sick. Every week in the trendy bars around my home I see wannabe wankers wearing CCCP shirts, wearing gucci sunglasses and probably ripped or extremely faded jeans for good measure. It is "cool" and hip man. What a rebel.. I had some friends from eastern Europe visit me and they noticed it and could not believe it. They still remember lining up for food rations as kids, there is absolutely nothing cool and hip about that! They were over here on exchange studying at an English Uni, are planning to travel the world and one is planning to start his own company back at home. They sure as hell don't want the CCCP back.

Coming across people wearing T-shirts with Brittish flag on them, I don't say it's a good taste, either.

Food rationing is horrible. But I think there is always something very unpleasant in the history of ANY country, which makes people hate it.

Sorry, but if the UK stopped existed, would Irish people want it back?

I Imagine you are disagreeing with me somehow but I'm not sure what your point is.

Coming across people wearing T-shirts with British flag on them, I don't say it's a good taste, either.

Sure I don't think it is in good taste either. But that is because I think it looks tacky not because they stripped me of my natural heritage forced to me accept another and took away my land.

Sorry, but if the UK stopped existed, would Irish people want it back?

So British imperialism subjugated others. Does that make it ok that the USSR did so as well?

So British imperialism subjugated others. Does that make it ok that the USSR did so as well?

Of course, no. It shouldn't, at least.

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

So, it's neither bad nor good, in my opinion.

Originally posted by u-gene


Of course, no. It shouldn't, at least.

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

So, it's neither bad nor good, in my opinion.

As an outsider, I wonder if those people who remember the Soviet Union as their best years do so simply because that situation was familiar, and the present one is not. Even a miserable person can take comfort in knowing what is going on and what is expected of him. If you drop him into an unknown situation where he might be better off he may not like it because it confuses him.

Ukraine being free from Russia is good. The SU is not good.

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

You know I agree with you there, and think there is a good point in this that you say some RUSSIANS want it back. That is a lot of Russians feel they were better off under the USSR. The other soviet "republics". Baltic's, Hungary. Czech etc. lost their independence and they are sure as hell happy to have it back. But for the Russians I can see how the last decade has been extremely painful as people have to adjust to a free market and I'm sure it was probably too sudden. (Russian default, rouble devaluation etc.. ) So therefore I agree with you that it is perfectly reasonable for some Russians to feel this way.

As a staunch capitalist all I can tell you is stick with it! It will take time but in my opinion the change to a free market economy will in the long run be for the best.

they dont sell those CCCP shirts over here........mostly cus 98% of the high school students wont even know waht it is :( i am always trying to teach them or give them some facts......but they sure are ignorant.......... but i managed to buy a real soviet parade hat ^_^

OMG, I can't believe I failed to locate this thread before it grew to some 50 posts.

Being a socialist (you right wingers simply call it communism regardless), like Damien said, the USSR set back our cause significantly. Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions.

However, it limited the US's ability to completely dominate the globe in the last half century, and it was the first country in which the workers rose up (Marxist style). I can't really see Russia if the revolution never took place. Imagine Catherine VII *shudder*.

CCCP was a success.

It imho was no worse than the previous
monarchies (even with Stalin murdering
millions, the czars were no better and
alot more incompentent) and was able
to rise from the serf to an industrial
economy built on blood.

Once this was attained, it was time for
it to go. And it died.

Originally posted by newfangle
OMG, I can't believe I failed to locate this thread before it grew to some 50 posts.

Being a socialist (you right wingers simply call it communism regardless), like Damien said, the USSR set back our cause significantly. Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions.

However, it limited the US's ability to completely dominate the globe in the last half century, and it was the first country in which the workers rose up (Marxist style). I can't really see Russia if the revolution never took place. Imagine Catherine VII *shudder*.


What do you mean when ye say that "it limited the United States' ability to completely dominate the globe" ?
What do ye actually think we had in mind, conquering Europe and Canada, like the bloodthirsty villains we are? :lol:

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was. We didn't want to colonize the world, the Soviets wanted to. One of the main objectives of the Soviet Union was the spread of communism all over the world, and soon afterwards turning the respective countries into proxies. One knows very well, the old cliche to the effect that the Soviet Union was merely defending itself by invading other countries; to serve as buffers against a potential attack by the United States. This is a ridiculous postulate. Because the sane man knows that the U.S. would never launch an aggression campaign against Soviet Union with the sole objective --- adding landmass to its empire. The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

The funny part is, that people actually tend to believe the official Soviet version --- that they simply had to defend themselves by invading other countries, to defend themselves from the evil capitalist U.S. which seeked to fulfil its only objective --- total world domination. :rolleyes: :lol:

Originally posted by nixon



What do you mean when ye say that "it limited the United States' ability to completely dominate the globe" ?
What do ye actually think we had in mind, conquering Europe and Canada, like the bloodthirsty villains we are? :lol:

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was. We didn't want to colonize the world, the Soviets wanted to. One of the main objectives of the Soviet Union was the spread of communism all over the world, and soon afterwards turning the respective countries into proxies. One knows very well, the old cliche to the effect that the Soviet Union was merely defending itself by invading other countries; to serve as buffers against a potential attack by the United States. This is a ridiculous postulate. Because the sane man knows that the U.S. would never launch an aggression campaign against Soviet Union with the sole objective --- adding landmass to its empire. The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

The funny part is, that people actually tend to believe the official Soviet version --- that they simply had to defend themselves by invading other countries, to defend themselves from the evil capitalist U.S. which seeked to fulfil its only objective --- total world domination. :rolleyes: :lol:


That lovely little rant of your was in vain. When I say "dominate" I refer to the uttermost certainty that the US would go to any measure to assure a complete monopoly over world economics. Oil, forestry, fresh water, etc.... The Soviets kept them at bay during a very important time- when the rest of the world was obliterated by war. Not much would have stopped the US from "liberating" all of Europe.

Keep in mind that everything I say about the US is completely true for the USSR.

i agree w/ newfanglethe US does dominate teh world w/ its economic policies, it goes to poor nations, takes the resources, makes the nation eventually poorer in exchange for so called "developing" which ends destroying th environment and the native family values (which are way better than some others.........

Originally posted by nixon
The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

When and where was this?

mmmh......KOREA, VIETNAM NICARAGUA AFRICA CHINA (indirectly of course) :P

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was.

Cool! Did you read it in a textbook? Probably published in Cold War years. I almost forgot these propaganda things. :lol:

I always wondered how Americans (not all, of course) believe in such a nonsense as the Evil empire (USSR, if some of you forgot) and the Good empire (guess who).

well maybe the USSR was historicaly more agresive than nato, altough nato sometimes did teh wrong things..........

Originally posted by u-gene


Cool! Did you read it in a textbook? Probably published in Cold War years. I almost forgot these propaganda things. :lol:

I always wondered how Americans (not all, of course) believe in such a nonsense as the Evil empire (USSR, if some of you forgot) and the Good empire (guess who).


1) Well one doesn't. As a matter of fact one has the memoirs of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, talking about propaganda, one does not forget easily the propaganda in those books.

2) Is it just too much to ask for, but do you find yourself unable to comprehend the fact that the Soviet Union was the aggressors. One is not pointing at the Russian man in general, one is pointing at the regime. Why do you think the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in '79, started a massive campaign in Africa to instate communist leaders, eventually making the countries proxies of the Soviet state? Expansion. Expansion that would increase any thinkable resource, and make the Soviet Union even more powerful so that it would be an easier task crushing America.

The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.
What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.
Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.
There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.
US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

Well one doesn't. As a matter of fact one has the memoirs of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, talking about propaganda, one does not forget easily the propaganda in those books.

So, do you mean that we all should keep on thinking and talking nonsense? Only because we cannot forget propaganda things? OK, I've got a lot to say about McCarthy, Bush, Reagan.., of their spreading propaganda.

Is it just too much to ask for, but do you find yourself unable to comprehend the fact that the Soviet Union was the aggressors

No, it's not much even for a Russian who doesn't understand such simple stuff you're talking about.
But don't you think that the US was/is an agressor, too? Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Yugoslavia... But please do not tell me that everything that was done in the name of love to the mankind, that we all should be grateful to the US for all this.

There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.

I agree. Thanks for a good point.

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo. What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.

That is true, they were busy at the Suez Canal, and that was way more important issue for them - but being a Hungarian I still cannot blame them for this.

Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.

That's a very good point. During the Cold War both countries did everything they could to support regimes, which were in favor of them and kick out regimes, which were not. Both country used military power if they could and secret operations if there was no other way. Both country was convinced that their ideology is better than the other therefore they have the right to dictate others. Both country tried to push economic pressure on other countries to "convince" or punish them.
And the education about the other country was just a propaganda rubbish in both countries. It's too bad that some people still buy this crap.

I do understand your point of view. It would be a kind of obvious to a Russian deeming the United States as aggressors. I don't have a clue about your age, but if you were alive, and intelligent, at the time of the Russian quest for the world, running to the the late 1980s before collapsing along with the union itself, it would be an obvious position for you to take.

It's a recurrent and palpable observation by the Russians and even many non-Americans to say that the United States was the aggressor in the sense that we decided to intervene in Vietnam, Korea etc. You may perhaps be familiar with several doctrines, hereof, the famous Truman Doctrine. A theory which pervaded the post-war administrations was the notion about the Domino Theory which you may be familiar with too. The Domino Theory grew out of the Soviet rape of Eastern Europe following the defeat of Nazi Germany, including the ignition of communist insurgencies and guerilla warfare which ravaged the Balkans after the war.

Something had to be done about it, thus hereof the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine etc. I mean, even from a Russian point of view, you must be able to see that we had to do something instead of just standing, watching by and seeing Europe become a part of the Soviet Union.

But you seemed insatiable. Therefore, you ignited even more campaigns with the purpose of controlling the respective countries which had the pleasure of receiving your generous "advice" and "aid material" But what happened to all these countries after a while --- they suddenly went communist all over the place. One's talking about the countries in Africa and South America which eventually become proxies of the Soviet state. Your motive was obvious and very evident to us, and that's why the whole thing about the Domino Theory evolved. Therefore, something had to be done when the Koreas were suddenly thrown into war in the early 1950s, and the same goes with the conflict in Vietnam. Then the treacherous former Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Southeast Asia wasn't of real concern and interest to the United States, the communists seized the opportunity in ignited a war. All this just for the cause of deterrence, to make sure to you, the Soviet Union, that the United States would do anything in order to defend capitalism and freedom. Yep, that's how it sounded in the 1950s and we still hear it today just in another respect and to a different opponent.

All this "nonsense" about preserving freedom and defending liberty was, of course, distorted in the hostile Soviet press, who of course turned the situation 180 degress and said that it was the U.S. which was on a picnic. This is understandble, to a certain extent, because that's what it says in the Russian history books today. The situation and motives will never, I believe, become understandable to any of the parties involved.

Ah, hoped one shed some light on one's views on the Soviet Union's motives in the post-war period, and one's sure that you have just the opposite view. So one's effort is totally wasted. :D :)

Ah, hoped one shed some light on one's views on the Soviet Union's motives in the post-war period, and one's sure that you have just the opposite view. So one's effort is totally wasted.

I'm quite aware of your views. They are understandable, too. And I don't think one's effort has been totally wasted. I'm trying to be flexible. ;)

Two points:
1. If you try to convince me that the SU was an agressor, you don't need to. I know it.
2. If you want me to believe the US was innocent and just protected the weak countries from the monstrous USSR, you don't need to do that, either. I'll never believe it. As one of the messages in the forum went, there's no black, no white, everything's grey.

Both countries did a lot of harm in Cold War years. And you and me are not to blame for it. I'm not saying that actions of the USSR were always justified. I see that plenty of things should never been done. But I see the same problems in the US behavior.

OK, I do realize Vietnam and Korea might still be a painful experience for Americans. But what about Kosovo? The UN voted against, Europe was not happy with it. And at the same time, you decided to attack Yugoslavia. Nobody asked you to. You would not listen to others' points of view. It's not of interest to you.

Some of my friends left Russia for America a while ago. Afterwards, when I talked to them, they told me that mass-media in the US is something horrible. If you know black is black and white is white, they'd convince you that everything is the other way round. So I'm not surprised at learning that e.g. "80% of Americans support the idea of bombing Yugoslavia! Yeah!". That reminds me of the Soviet era, when all the elections showed "99% for".

And what's the difference between America and Spanish conquestadors (probably, bed spelling)? Both wanted to thrust its opinion on 'lepers'.

Finally, 2 A-Bombs that you dropped on Japan. And NEVER begged pardon for it. It's an agressive we-know-what-to-do-ourselves style of policy.

u-gene, ne slushay shto eti amerikansi govaryat. mi dolshni dratsa za savetzkuyu vlast, na vsegda!!!!!

hey, Propaganda, ty tozhe iz rossii? :) No v lyubom sluchae dratsya za sovetskuyu vlast' ya vryad li budu. :crazyeye: A sredi etix amerikantsev est' neglupye lyudi. don't u think so?

Originally posted by u-gene
hey, Propaganda, ty tozhe iz rossii? :) No v lyubom sluchae dratsya za sovetskuyu vlast' ya vryad li budu. :crazyeye: A sredi etix amerikantsev est' neglupye lyudi. don't u think so?

:D

Koneshno yest pravda ot obye storanov v'etom razgovorye. Ti menya prosto ne slushai, potomushta ya ochen nostalgic(;) ) za savetzkogo sayuza.

Now, to answer this question, in a sense that the majority will understand, I'll say this. In terms of pros, the Soviet Union brought on stability to much of the world. It kept people in-check. It helped illeterate, poverty-stricken people to become productive in society. It sheltered and fed most of it's citizens. It provided free health care, free education, and guaranteed pension, to all it's citizens(most of which are now used by different types of countries/governments). It also provided guranteed/fixed wages, and job security. It helped shape the idea of workers' benefits(such as paid vacations) and it made socialism fashionable(and looking at the US, almost a necessity) to many countries. As for the cons, it helped coin the term, "terrorism," by funding and educating people, on the fundamentals of guerrila warfare, bio-terrorism, etc. It created hostilities between differing ethnic groups, within itself and abroad, by dissallowing "free speech"(no, not the American version), freedom of religion, freedom of press and other basic human rights, and by constantly funding the war effort in the Middle East.

There are probably more, but I'm too tired to type anymore.

Darn ****, one moment....

Ahh, the forum doesn't support Cyrillic letters. :)



:D

We should consider this a joke? I think we should,becuse your smile is so charming, nix:)

Propa what the hell are you writing? Navsiegda is written in one word!

:p

Where could he learn Russian?.. Gde?.. Aaaa! Understood he is an CIA agent!

Or you have seen that inscription on some propaganda poster?
I should say the Russian language changed since the times of cold war, no one in russia will understand anything you ve written, but let me help u after the 2nd word this word must follow:.... oh Ive noticed A of A message its too late. But that word looks like: TBO|-O where "|-O" is written in one word.
Well, no posts in Russian any more;)

This is an English board, kindly post ONLY in English.

Thanks.

No, we better stop. :D

No, it's not something I've seen on some kind of propaganda poster, one was simply honing one's delicate Russian skills. :lol: :rolleyes:

It's a combination of several sources, trust me, I don't know any Russian at all, but one just thought I had to give the English-Russian dictionary a go. :)

You can't be serious, you can read what it says right?

I've gotta say a few things... BTW: I think the US was much more of a good guy (in actions) over the USSR.

A few things I admit...

1.) Socialism Ideas are great Ideas. Though I feel it's normally overly optimistic, because Human greed, (particularly the Government). Social Programs, such has Health Care, etc. are also good, however some people try to abuse the system. Look at the United States Health care system... with healthy people getting Disability pay. (Mind you this is the MINORITY who try to take advantage of the system)

2.) The USA isn't totally innocent in it's entire History. Teddy Roosevelt's extention on the Monroe Doctrine was essentially pushing for United States Imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, wasn't fixed until the "good Neighbor" policy of FDR. More important for this discussion is America's mistakes in the Cold War. Iran and Iraq for example... we supported the Monarchy in Iran. And when it fell we supported the dictatorship in Iraq, seeing the Fundamentalist Irani Government as the "greater evil."

We didn't interfere with Hungry for 1 reason.... World War III. If we had supported the Hungry rebellion militarily then the USSR would have "liberated" West Berlin or would have just attacked US forces in Hungry, and then you'd have all out war between the USSR and the US. The certianty of Attack came from the philosophy to use Eastern Europe as a cushion for any Western Invasion. By losing Hungry... they'd lose some cushion, impending an invasion.

About the A-bombs and Japan... that's a different story. I personally hold the belief that that Saved lives because an invasion would have been much more costly in both American and Japanese lives, esp. since Japanese Culture deems "No Surrender" and the Japanese Civilians (including Women and Children) were preparing to fight the Americans to the last man, woman and child. Trying to get the Allies to just quit cause it got too costly for us, since we were the weak westerner who actually felt surrender was an option when near defeat. Should we have allowed Japanese observers to watch the Trinity detonation before using it on Japanese cities.... Yeah. Were, the Japanese in peace talks with the Russians? I think so... but there's A.) the Fear of Communism to take into concideration, and B.) I don't believe they Japanese would seek to "Surrender" to the Russians, just negotiate a mutual peace, since the Russians jumped into the Pacific war at the last minute for Railroad rights in Manchuria, and that this agreement was only intended to be with the Russians not with the Americans. However, I must admit my "BELIEF" is only based on speculation and the Japanese Culture and the personality of the Japanese leadership fo the time I haven't seen any documents relating to any Peace negotiations with the Russians. In fact one Veteran and US Air Force Museuam Volenteer told me that he was leading a tour group of Japanese in the Museum and showed them "Bock's Car" (sorry if my spelling's off, I'm sure it's not "Box Car"), the B-29 which droped the Second Atomic Bomb. And he said how it prevented the invasion and saved both American and Japanese lives. And, one old Japanese man broke down in tears and said "Thank You" for using that and not invading. Is that Story true? I can't be 100% sure, the only evidence I have is the Veteran's word and that the way he said it gave me the impression that he was sincere.

Anyway, I've gotten off topic...
"And what's the difference between America and Spanish conquestadors"

Spanish Conquestadors-
1.) Gold was their primary Goal, Idealogy (religion) was just a good Excuse to gain the support of the Pope.
2.) Forcibly Surpressed local culture.
3.) Actually Conquered the people they came across.

America-
1.) Primary concern is Idealogy and to create Allies. Any profits are a side benefit. (We patched up Japan and we import more from them than Export to them, so we give them more money than they give us.)
2.) Local culture can remain. If people choice to adopt Western Culture, we don't mind, but we don't FORCE them to.
3.) The US tends to Liberate, establishing a Democratic Government. Whenever we haven't truely "liberated" we set up independent Dictatorships friendly to us and ussually benevolent to the people. (I know of no post-cold war examples of this, which is a good sign). It's more the Imperial British Idea of a "Protectorate" so basically "you can be independent and do what ever you want, so long as you're friendly to us, and we'lll help protect you"

Originally posted by Falcon02
We didn't interfere with Hungry for 1 reason.... World War III. If we had supported the Hungry rebellion militarily then the USSR would have "liberated" West Berlin or would have just attacked US forces in Hungry, and then you'd have all out war between the USSR and the US. The certianty of Attack came from the philosophy to use Eastern Europe as a cushion for any Western Invasion. By losing Hungry... they'd lose some cushion, impending an invasion.


Well, as I noted in one of the threads, the crisis in Egypt was far more important for the West than the Hungarian uprising. No wonder about it. Hungary was considered as a country in the interest sphere of the Soviet Union, thanks to the Jalta agreement and the three leaders (including the US) who agreed upon this. It really wouldn't make any sense to mess with the Hungarian situation for the West, although many Hungarians think to it as a betrayal. 1956 in Hungary was a second-class uprising within the East Block and since Austria was not a NATO-member there wasn't any opportunity to approach Hungary from the West without creating a larger mess - maybe another war. It just did not worth it for the US. That was the spirit of Jalta and therefore there was no way to change the status quo on either side of the iron curtain - at least in Europe.

You can't be serious, you can read what it says right?

Actually, everything's OK ,but I've already explained you everythig by private message

...one old Japanese man broke down in tears and said "Thank You" for using that and not invading.

Sorry, that reminds me of a good Russian proverb that can be translated into English like 'we soon believe what we desire'. Very doubtful.

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.
What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.
Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.
There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.
US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

Some good points.

Originally posted by sgrig
Apparently after WW2, the US did have plans to begin nuclear war against Soviet Union in 1950, but had to abandon their plans when USSR got the bomb.

No, they had plans for the contingency of a war with the USSR, just as they had plans for the contingency of a war with Mexico, and probably had contingency plans for a war with Lower Timbuktu.

The anti-soviet war plan - codenamed "Dropshot" - recognized that in the event of expected AGGRESSION by the Soviet Union, the likely result of conventional fighting in Europe could see the allies pushed back to redoubts as far back from the Rhine as Brittany and the Pyrenees in less than two weeks, in addition to the loss of virtually all of the middle east, northern Japan and Korea.

In the event that these redoubts fell, "Dropshot" dictated that the only logical US response to the nearly complete conquest of Free Europe by Stalinists would be a series of atomic bombardments designed to permanently destroy the Soviet Union, and specified target lists and likely attack routes accordingly.

Fascinating reading; the full text of the strategic outline of the plan, with force estimates, fallback lines and so forth, is published and available in a single volume. Fascinating also that the existence of such a plan - of which the Soviets surely had several variations - is somehow translated by the raw undercurrent of anti-Americanism into "a plan to begin nuclear war in 1950."

R.III

Marshall Zhukov wrote:

The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.

What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.

So, the U.S. should have started World War III over Hungary in 1956? What besides a full military confrontation could the U.S. or the West have done to save Hungary? Completely ignoring the larger "distraction" of the day, the Suez Crisis, the West could do nothing but condemn with words the Soviet invasion. Do you think they could have negotiated Soviet tanks out of Budapest? :rolleyes:

Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.

As a Pole who has lived in the Soviet empire I'd like to differ. There was a very significant difference between Soviet and American foreign policy. It is quite true that both sides used local petty thugs in the Third World to support their respective sides but in the larger context the basic picture was of the Soviets trying to take over the world and the Americans trying to contain them. The Americans never tried to control their allies; France was able to partially bail out of NATO under De Gaulle but look what happened when Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1981) looked like they might leave the WTO. France and Britain were able to develop their own nuclear arsenals but the USSR never allowed any of its "allies" (i.e., captive satellites) anywhere near modern military technology. The Americans' allies have often and loudly criticized American policies, but Soviet "allies" never dared do so, without dire consequences. Quite bluntly, if you can't tell the difference between a militaristic, expansionist dictatorship and a democratic if somewhat overzealous republic, then perhaps you need to read more - much more.

There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.

Again, I invite you to visit any one of the many mass graves created by the Soviets and their puppet cronies; can you find any such mass graves in Western Europe left by the Americans?

US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

"Sponsored"? Do you mean that the U.S. recognized an existing Brazilian dictatorship and treated it as an ally of convenience? Are you trying to hoist what is really a Brazilian problem with political development and maturity (endemic among nearly all South American governments) onto the U.S., despite the fact that the social and political conditions that created the dictatorship vastly pre-date American involvement? The dictators who ruled Poland from 1944-1989 were directly installed and approved by the USSR; they could do nothing significant at all in Poland without Moscow's approval. Had the Soviet Army not installed these dictators in 1944, they would never have had a chance of seizing power in Poland. They were Russian puppets. Did an American army install the Brazilian dictators and control their every move, or did these dictators seize power by themselves (due to Brazil's weak political structures and history) and ally themselves with the Americans' anti-communist crusade, basically still retaining complete control in Brazil? Left by itself, Poland in 1944 would never have developed the kind of dictatorship it got from the Soviets; but I strongly suspect that even if the Americans had never dealt with Brazil at all it still would have gotten that same dictatorship. That's a critical difference, and one you can't blame the Americans for. The blame for Brazil's political and economic ills is much closer to home than Washington.

Again, you're right that it is reprehensible that both the USSR and the USA supported dictators around the world in their Cold War confrontation, and perhaps the USA is worse in the sense that they claimed to be supporting democracy around the world. (The Soviets made no such claims; quite the opposite.) The Americans have spent the last decade since the Cold War examining the consequences of their support for anyone who was anti-Soviet; this got a lot of press with the recent Afghan war as an obvious example. But to pretend that all the evil in the world between 1945 and 1990 was caused by the Cold War is to live in a state of personal (and perhaps national) denial.

Originally posted by calgacus


Some good points.

You actually take 4 months to write that? ;)

Originally posted by tonberry


You actually take 4 months to write that? ;)

:mischief:

The USSR was good AND bad.
it was originally a benevolent creation that took a wrong turn and ended up being totalitarian and destructive to its people.

HOWEVER
1. it routed the Nazi advance and helped the Allies crush Nazi Germany in a vicegrip.
2. it liberated east europe from the Nazis
3. it brought into Russia welfare programs and health care support for people who were unable to receive or afford it in the tsarist times or during Kerensky's republic
4. it kept the global power and influence of the USA in check - balancing out the spheres of influence
5. when it detonated its first nuclear weapon, it helped the USA and West European democracies realize that weapons of mass destruction arent the way to solve things - they will ultimately lead to destruction of both sides. basically, the Soviet nukes kept the Americans and the other nations from using them in wars or conflicts.

the bad?
1. gulags - killed off millions of people
2. dictatorships in the Soviet Republics and the Eastern European People's Republics
3. refused to give independence to East Europeans
4. repressed attempts for reforms - therefore taking a turn towards the reactionary right
5. no freedom
6. self-serving Supreme Soviet and Premiers
7. tended to care mostly about the power of the Russian Soviet Republic,