Ronald Reagan

[Antilogic]

"Standing up to the Soviets?" It was the West who was the bully being stood up to, the USSR was the wormy kid who'd had enough and decided to hit the gym so he would never be bullied again.

Something that is never really explained, especially in US classrooms, is the idea that the Soviets thought themselves insecure from foreign aggression as much as the West did. The "evil empire" motif is probably to blame.

Regarding the "leader of the free world" thing: most influential does not translate to leader, Ziggy has it right. It's a tagline spit out by American newscasters in the good ol' days when other countries couldn't hear our tellies.

 

[kochman]

Before Hitler invaded the USSR, Stalin was planning to wait until the west had slugged it out, and when weakened, roll through...
Here's the other difference... the USSR held onto the Eastern Bloc with an iron fist.
When France wanted out of NATO, where the USA didn't force military bases, NATO said ok.
Imagine if East Germany had tried to get out of the Warsaw Pact!?
See the difference?

Tagline... sure...
You guys are taking the term "leader of the free world" way to seriously... it's not dictator for life or something.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, if you emphasize "the" and capitalise "leader" in "He was the leader of the free world" I tend to take notice.

But I'm glad we've come to the agreement the label is not to be taken seriously

 

[Ergo Sum]

Before Hitler invaded the USSR, Stalin was planning to wait until the west had slugged it out, and when weakened, roll through...

This was hardly more than a vague dream of Stalin's, Soviet foreign policy was characterized by paranoia and fear of encirclement.

Here's the other difference... the USSR held onto the Eastern Bloc with an iron fist.

Is that any better than supporting dictators in South Vietnam, South Korea, China, Cuba, Bolivia, Iran, Chile, the Congo, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Greece, Haiti, Iraq, Argentina, Guatemala, and so on and so forth?

 

[Crezth]

Before Hitler invaded the USSR, Stalin was planning to wait until the west had slugged it out, and when weakened, roll through...
Here's the other difference... the USSR held onto the Eastern Bloc with an iron fist.
When France wanted out of NATO, where the USA didn't force military bases, NATO said ok.
Imagine if East Germany had tried to get out of the Warsaw Pact!?
See the difference?

Actually it's well-understood that the reason the Russians amalgamated the states of the Warsaw Pact around them in such a way was in order to preempt another attack by western nations (most preeminently Germany), for reasons that are entirely understandable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Before Hitler invaded the USSR, Stalin was planning to wait until the west had slugged it out, and when weakened, roll through...
Here's the other difference... the USSR held onto the Eastern Bloc with an iron fist.
When France wanted out of NATO, where the USA didn't force military bases, NATO said ok.
Imagine if East Germany had tried to get out of the Warsaw Pact!?
See the difference?

Imagine if West Germany had tried to leave NATO or join the East? What might have happened?

A decent bet can be made that it would be the same thing that happened to Grenada, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. The fear of which caused the Portuguese to purposefully restrain their own revolution.

The Soviets correctly understood that united they stood, divided they fell. Beset by the imperialist nations on all sides, having their destruction called for by a superior foe who was trying to "contain" them, this was politically necessary. To expect anything less is laughable, especially when the opposition did basically the same thing.

 

[Tahuti]

Imagine if West Germany had tried to leave NATO or join the East? What might have happened?

I do recall that the US considered responding favorably to the 1952 Stalin note: Had that happened and Stalin was sincere with the offer, the Cold war might have ended in the 1950s with Germany becoming unified and acting as a military buffer zone between the US and the Soviet Union. The Warsaw pact would've never been founded and the NATO would have continued to be nothing more than a talking forum.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Actually it's well-understood that the reason the Russians amalgamated the states of the Warsaw Pact around them in such a way was in order to preempt another attack by western nations (most preeminently Germany), for reasons that are entirely understandable.

I am glad to see that my Russian Nationalist posts didn't go to waste. Indeed, the greedy and aggressive mentality inherent in the We$t requires justified defensive actions on part of Mother Russia.

 

[Crezth]

I am glad to see that my Russian Nationalist posts didn't go to waste. Indeed, the greedy and aggressive mentality inherent in the We$t requires justified defensive actions on part of Mother Russia.

You know, I can never tell if you're being facetious.

 

[kramerfan86]

Some of the USSR's actions have good historical reasons behind them, but it is still hard to justify forcing one party dictatorship on half a continent. Now this isnt to say the west was innocent either since they had a habit of trying to force dictators in plenty of 2nd and 3rd world countries when it was convenient to do so. Tragic part of the cold war is how many innocent nations got caught in the crossfire between the two super powers and had their governments chosen for them.

 

[kochman]

This was hardly more than a vague dream of Stalin's, Soviet foreign policy was characterized by paranoia and fear of encirclement.

Source?

Some of the USSR's actions have good historical reasons behind them, but it is still hard to justify forcing one party dictatorship on half a continent. Now this isnt to say the west was innocent either since they had a habit of trying to force dictators in plenty of 2nd and 3rd world countries when it was convenient to do so. Tragic part of the cold war is how many innocent nations got caught in the crossfire between the two super powers and had their governments chosen for them.

Exactly! There are still some USSR lovers who look back all nostalgically at one of the worst, most mass murdering regimes ever, and act as though they were victims.

They wanted and actively tried to spread communism... it helped them (explotation, trade, etc).

There were how many legitimate elections to turn a nation communist? Armed gangs took power, and the USSR was more than willing to help them.

To say the USSR was scared the USA was going to come in and attack them, despite what Patton was saying (one general does not a war make, especially when he was known for being a hot head), is utter rubbish. It's an excuse for enslaving Eastern Europe while the real goal was eventual world wide communism.

Anyhow, we were talking PRE-WW2 about this too... Stalin had his eyes set on the Eastern part of Europe, AND the Western part of Europe. It was only a "dream" because it never happened, because the Nazi's surprise attack.

Remember the Non-Aggression Pact... Stalin was happy about that because in his mind it gauranteed the West would be weak soon. He was also MORE than happy to take a large chunk of Poland, and all the Baltic States, as agreed with Hitler... did he make these countries "buffer zone" against future Western attacks? NOPE... he incorporated them immediately into the Soviet Union.

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Tahuti]

To say the USSR was scared the USA was going to come in and attack them, despite what Patton was saying (one general does not a war make, especially when he was known for being a hot head), is utter rubbish. It's an excuse for enslaving Eastern Europe while the real goal was eventual world wide communism.

What about "Socialism in one Country"? Why would the Soviets want to impose world communism if they wouldn't really profit from it personally and risk losing their position in the process as well?

 

[kochman]

What about "Socialism in one Country"? Why would the Soviets want to impose world communism if they wouldn't really profit from it personally and risk losing their position in the process as well?

What?
Sorry, but your questions are too highly speculative to really merit discussion...

 

[Ajidica]

Source?

Robert Service, Comrades!: A History of World Communism and to a lesser extent, Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger.

To say the USSR was scared the USA was going to come in and attack them, despite what Patton was saying (one general does not a war make, especially when he was known for being a hot head), is utter rubbish. It's an excuse for enslaving Eastern Europe while the real goal was eventual world wide communism.

Unfortunately, the documents released by the Soviet Archives disagree with you. As much as Stalin blasted the "World Communism" trumpet, the Soviet Command knew that world communism was a pipe dream and that they had to secure the USSR from foreign invasion.
To be fair to the Soviets, it isn't hard to understand why they would want protection from foreign invasion, given their history.

Remember the Non-Aggression Pact... Stalin was happy about that because in his mind it gauranteed the West would be weak soon. He was also MORE than happy to take a large chunk of Poland, and all the Baltic States, as agreed with Hitler...

This was more a case of Stalin misreading Hitler than any other sort of event. Stalin thought Hitler was a 'Balence of Power' sort of leader, not a genocidal maniac.

did he make these countries "buffer zone" against future Western attacks? NOPE... he incorporated them immediately into the Soviet Union.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Better the Ukraine gets invaded the the RSFSR in their view.

The proof is in the pudding.

You may want to throw out the pudding, I think it has curdled. Using analysis that are almost a generation old tends to do that.

 

[kochman]

You're right... the massive land grabs were PURELY defensive...
Good grief. Revisionist historian calls common knowledge "generations old curdled"... Because history has changed so much.
Of course it was a pipedream, it wasn't like it would happen overnight, doesn't mean they weren't taking baby steps towards one day fulfilling that dream!

You don't have to completely dominate a nation to have defensive agreements with them, by the way... see the USA in W Europe for an example.

This rosy nostalgia USSR was OK idea is truly sick... I guess the millions and millions that died under the USSR were just a "statistic" to you all that think Stalin was so awesome.

 

[Oruc]

"Standing up to the Soviets?" It was the West who was the bully being stood up to, the USSR was the wormy kid who'd had enough and decided to hit the gym so he would never be bullied again.

What? Russia is a part of the west, it was never a wormy kid but one of the bigger bullies (Austria would have been the wormy bully)

 

[bombshoo]

I know I've brought this quote up before but I'll mention it again since it's relevent.

"Our military objectives have always been defensive. That was even true under Stalin. I never once heard Stalin say anything about preparing to commit aggression against another country. His biggest concern was putting anti-aircraft installations around Moscow in case our country became under attack from the West." -Khrushchev's memoirs, written in 1974.

Furthermore, in my reading on the subject, nothing has ever come out of the Soviet archives detailing serious plans for an invasion of Western Europe. If you know I'm wrong on this, please point out the sources that say otherwise, because despite the fact I hear it all the time, I have never actually seen detailed proof otherwise. Just conjectures.

Also none of this is particuarly revisionists. George F. Kenan was basically saying the same thing as Ajidica back in 1948. He did say the Soviets were inherently expansionist (seeking to spread communism, which I don't think anyone will argue) but this was unfortunately corrupted into being "inherently aggressive". After Korea (which got out of hand even for them), Soviet support for armed insurrections never amounted to much more than prodding the West. The Soviet Union would take what it could get, as basically any state does, but any ideas for for worldwide revolution through war were being seriously questioned even as far back as Lenin.

 

[Antilogic]

I thought the ideas of a global revolution died before Lenin did--the idea of "socialism in one country" was becoming popular around 1920 (wiki has it first pronounced by Stalin in 1924, but I think it developed before that), during the Russian Civil War. So their [serious] expansionist thoughts lasted for all of... 3ish years?

Oh, yeah, the source: A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. I'm finishing it now, it's quite a good read.

 

[bombshoo]

I thought the ideas of a global revolution died before Lenin did--the idea of "socialism in one country" was becoming popular around 1920 (wiki has it first pronounced by Stalin in 1924, but I think it developed before that), during the Russian Civil War. So their [serious] expansionist thoughts lasted for all of... 3ish years?

Oh, yeah, the source: A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. I'm finishing it now, it's quite a good read.

I just didn't want to make statements that were too broad. I'm sure there were some people still thinking it was possible, that's why I said seriously questioned, rather than completely thrown out the window.

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought the ideas of a global revolution died before Lenin did--the idea of "socialism in one country" was becoming popular around 1920 (wiki has it first pronounced by Stalin in 1924, but I think it developed before that), during the Russian Civil War.

I think this oversimplifies it. There was a retreat from active internationalism in the early '20s, as the European revolutionary wage collapsed/turned out to be a dud, depending on your perspective, but that wasn't an abandonment of international revolution as such, just a claim that the Soviet Union had to dig in until it was back on the cards. Stalin's doctrine of "socialism in one country" represented a completely new theoretical/ideological leap, that the Soviet Union could develop a socialist society in the absence of global revolution, that it did not ultimately matter whether it ever came back on the cards at all.

/pedant