Ronald Reagan

[kochman]

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.

So, the takeover of several countries was defensive? In other words, the best defense is a good offense?
What about my point, the USA stayed in W Europe on a defensive footing without totally dominating them...
Official words may have been nice (especially when written by Khrushchev, who had an agenda), but actual actions were serious enough to point to another conclusion.

 

[Agent327]

So, the takeover of several countries was defensive? In other words, the best defense is a good offense?

Yes, you got that right... this time. The occcupation of Eastern Europe occurred during the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany. Had the Soviets retreated after Germany´s defeat it is unlikely that any of those countries would have been friendly towards the USSR. I don´t see how they had much choice in staying there.

 

[Ergo Sum]

So, the takeover of several countries was defensive? In other words, the best defense is a good offense?
What about my point, the USA stayed in W Europe on a defensive footing without totally dominating them...
Official words may have been nice (especially when written by Khrushchev, who had an agenda), but actual actions were serious enough to point to another conclusion.

The USSR installed friendly governments in the countries that had already declared war on them, much like the allies at Versailles or in West Germany. The Soviets notably did not install satellite governments in Finland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (even though Slovakia fought against them during the war). To characterize this as a 'takeover of several countries' is forgetting a few details. And to fail to see why this was defensive when Russia nearly fell to Germany in two consecutive world wars is a little shortsighted, yes?

And you still have not responded as to why the USA propping up dictatorship after dictatorship around the world through the Cold War and beyond was not as ruinous as the Soviets' actions in the East Bloc and Soviet sphere? Both countries played the game, it just happened that one fancied itself democratic and let other white people run their own affairs...

 

[Behind The Mask]

Yes, you got that right... this time. The occcupation of Eastern Europe occurred during the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany. Had the Soviets retreated after Germany´s defeat it is unlikely that any of those countries would have been friendly towards the USSR. I don´t see how they had much choice in staying there.

Indeed.

That points perhaps one of the easiest to understand the motivation behind; granted you have to understand the concept of a buffer state.

History is full of buffer states used to seperate great powers; take Siam for instance, which seperated British and French colonies in Indochina.

 

[Tahuti]

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

There is absolutely nothing speculative about my question: Socialism in one country was the official policy of the USSR and it was reflected in the fact the USSR didn't attack every neighbouring nation it saw even though it could do so and succeed easily.

 

[Crezth]

You're right... the massive land grabs were PURELY defensive...

How is this not evident to you? The USSR was attacked twice by Germany in a space of time smaller than 40 years. Hell, by 1945 they just got out of a war in which they lost tens of millions to Western aggression. That's at least three orders of magnitude more than what the USA lost.

A nation that had completely worn itself out by fending off an aggressive military juggernaut isn't going to be thinking "Hm, let me see if I can defeat the relatively unscathed foremost industrial power in pitched war." Yeah, right.

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.

Jesus, don't be so stubborn. Nobody here is advocating genocide nor genocidal regimes. It's all about trying to understand where our "enemies" are coming from. Yeah, the gulags sucked, but the USSR wasn't a one-dimensional entity hellbent on the annihilation of the West.

Or, you know, keep calling the USSR an evil empire. Yes. Every single Soviet was a stormtrooper that daily made blood sacrifices to Satanstalin and cursed the name of Ronald "Our Lord and Savior" Reagan.

 

[kochman]

Yes, you got that right... this time. The occcupation of Eastern Europe occurred during the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany. Had the Soviets retreated after Germany´s defeat it is unlikely that any of those countries would have been friendly towards the USSR. I don´t see how they had much choice in staying there.

You're still missing the point.
They didn't have to do it in the manner they did. The USA had bases in Germany, Italy, etc... did we make sure, through the deployment of tanks, while we stole the natural resources of the country, that democracy and our preferred leaders were kept in power no matter what?
No.
The USSR did. See following reply...

The USSR installed friendly governments in the countries that had already declared war on them, much like the allies at Versailles or in West Germany. The Soviets notably did not install satellite governments in Finland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (even though Slovakia fought against them during the war). To characterize this as a 'takeover of several countries' is forgetting a few details. And to fail to see why this was defensive when Russia nearly fell to Germany in two consecutive world wars is a little shortsighted, yes?

When did the Baltic States attack Russia? And Poland? That was not after the war...
What happened in Czech in 1968? (by the way, did Czech in any way, shape or form declare war on Russia?)
http://www.lib.umich.edu/soviet-invasion-czechoslovakia/
Slovakia wasn't a nation, by the way... are you saying that some slovaks fought? So what? Some Ukrainians fought for Germany too.
What happened in Hungary before that?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/
Where did the USA do that in Europe?
And, you are saying that Russia almost fell to Germany in WW1? They surrendered because of the internal situation... the Germans were no where NEAR attack Moscow in WW1...

And you still have not responded as to why the USA propping up dictatorship after dictatorship around the world through the Cold War and beyond was not as ruinous as the Soviets' actions in the East Bloc and Soviet sphere? Both countries played the game, it just happened that one fancied itself democratic and let other white people run their own affairs...

I never excused propping up "friendly" dictators, but it is hardly as bad as military invasions of European countries.


And now for this doozy... ahahaha...

How is this not evident to you? The USSR was attacked twice by Germany in a space of time smaller than 40 years. Hell, by 1945 they just got out of a war in which they lost tens of millions to Western aggression. That's at least three orders of magnitude more than what the USA lost.

In WW1 Germany declared war, but it was fought on a largely defensive level... they weren't thrusting toward Moscow for crying out loud.
Anyhow, does wanting nations to buffer mean you should completely dominate your neighbors through violence/force? No.

A nation that had completely worn itself out by fending off an aggressive military juggernaut isn't going to be thinking "Hm, let me see if I can defeat the relatively unscathed foremost industrial power in pitched war." Yeah, right.

The nation had worn itself thin through terrible forms of government.
The USSR had a military that would have absolutely decimated us, whether right after WW2, or in 1989... You should look it up. Let me give you an idea...
The US and Western Allies fought about 5 German "Armies", meaning, several corps.
The USSR was fighting the other 45, and had overwhelming numerical superiority.
In the 80s, the balance of power favored the USSR by about 10:1 in troop numbers.

February 9, 1946: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible... and the iron curtain descended upon Europe.
June 24, 1948: Berlin Blockade begins lasting 11 months... so very defensive... the US forces in West Berlin were a major threat to Moscow.
Etc, etc.
You're right... they were the victims.

Jesus, don't be so stubborn.

How ironic. I'm stubborn for insisting the USSR could've handled the post war situation with a softer hand. This nostalgic revisionism, painting the USSR as the victim is an insult to millions and millions of real victims.

Nobody here is advocating genocide nor genocidal regimes.

Are you godwinning? Who said anything about genocide?

It's all about trying to understand where our "enemies" are coming from.

What a sweethearted way of thinking. That's what Neville Chamberlain thought about Hitler... not always the best plan... sometimes you think yourself into the wrong idea, because you don't want to accept the truth.

Yeah, the gulags sucked, but the USSR wasn't a one-dimensional entity hellbent on the annihilation of the West.

I never said that. Hyperbole isn't needed.

Or, you know, keep calling the USSR an evil empire.

They absolutely were an evil empire, just as the Nazis were... killed many more people, had the same secret police thing going on, etc... they stopped short of genocide, but excelled in other places.

Every single Soviet was a stormtrooper that daily made blood sacrifices to Satanstalin and cursed the name of Ronald "Our Lord and Savior" Reagan.

This is just stupid. More hyperbole... doesn't help your argument to argue points that no one made.
No one said every soviet citizen was bad. The powers that be used violence, thuggery, KGB, etc to ENSURE that the average citizen was scared crapless... That's why the regime was so terrible, and it was inflicted on millions outside of the USSR too, and millions in nations like the Baltic States which were forcibly made part of the USSR.
Religion, or totalitarian government, the opium of the masses.

 

[Crezth]

In WW1 Germany declared war, but it was fought on a largely defensive level... they weren't thrusting toward Moscow for crying out loud.
Anyhow, does wanting nations to buffer mean you should completely dominate your neighbors through violence/force? No.

Indeed, in WW1 there was no tremendous assault, but it was war nonetheless. In WW2, however, there was that spectacular attack. So it's entirely reasonable to assume the USSR would not be okay with another arrangement like they had before the war.

The USA had their own "puppet" in West Germany (albeit a republican government) and stationed troops there. The USA actually put Nazis back into positions of power to accelerate the economic recovery of that region. While this would not be a problem by itself (well...), it's very hypocritical to expect the USSR to retreat back behind its borders while the USA is free to occupy and militarize Western Europe, ostensibly for protection but possibly for aggression. As a nation that suffered more from aggression than any other that century, it makes sense that the Soviets would be sensitive to militarization of any sort taking place on their borders.

The nation had worn itself thin through terrible forms of government.

You don't think fending off the Nazis had anything to do with it?

The USSR had a military that would have absolutely decimated us, whether right after WW2, or in 1989... You should look it up. Let me give you an idea...
The US and Western Allies fought about 5 German "Armies", meaning, several corps.
The USSR was fighting the other 45, and had overwhelming numerical superiority.
In the 80s, the balance of power favored the USSR by about 10:1 in troop numbers.

I am always a little perplexed when people bring up troop numbers as if they're all you need. How do you explain The Winter War between the USSR and Finland?

1. In 1945, the USA had two massive oceans separating it from the USSR. It had a relatively free populace and a strong industrial base. No attempt by the USSR to attack the USA could have been successful, especially with the USA's considerable Navy.

2. Later that year, the USA was established as having developed weapons of some considerable annihilation capacity.

3. In the 1980's, both the USA and the USSR had nuclear weapons. Whyyyy do troop numbers matter when, if either nation was about to be destroyed in conventional warfare, they could obliterate the other? It makes no sense. It's typical Cold War-gone-Hot military fetishization. If the Cold War went Hot, both nations would have been devastated in the ensuing nuclear conflict. End of story.

edit: Now, then, if you want to argue that the USSR was not worried about nuclear exchange, or was prepared for that eventuality in such a way as to even encourage its occurring, thats another issue entirely.

February 9, 1946: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible... and the iron curtain descended upon Europe.
June 24, 1948: Berlin Blockade begins lasting 11 months... so very defensive... the US forces in West Berlin were a major threat to Moscow.
Etc, etc.
You're right... they were the victims.

I didn't say the USSR were victims as such, just that they had reasons for doing what they did that weren't "we want to eat the West's babies."

How ironic. I'm stubborn for insisting the USSR could've handled the post war situation with a softer hand. This nostalgic revisionism, painting the USSR as the victim is an insult to millions and millions of real victims.

Painting the USA as some sort of hero is an insult to millions of oppressed blacks and hundreds of thousands of interned Japanese, not to mention the suppressed masses of Latin America. What's your point?

Are you godwinning? Who said anything about genocide?

Oh, that was you:

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.

So, I mean, there ya go.

What a sweethearted way of thinking. That's what Neville Chamberlain thought about Hitler... not always the best plan... sometimes you think yourself into the wrong idea, because you don't want to accept the truth.

I mean, yeah, but we're talking about the historical motivations of a nation here, not attempting to consort with maniacs.

I never said that. Hyperbole isn't needed.

Well, then...

They absolutely were an evil empire, just as the Nazis were... killed many more people, had the same secret police thing going on, etc... they stopped short of genocide, but excelled in other places.

...don't say stuff like this.

This is just stupid. More hyperbole... doesn't help your argument to argue points that no one made.
No one said every soviet citizen was bad. The powers that be used violence, thuggery, KGB, etc to ENSURE that the average citizen was scared crapless... That's why the regime was so terrible, and it was inflicted on millions outside of the USSR too, and millions in nations like the Baltic States which were forcibly made part of the USSR.

Well, I'll bite.

1. How do you know how the average citizen felt?
2. Violence and thuggery aren't tools used by governments almost universally?
3. Which millions outside the USSR? Is this anything like the millions that the USA harmed indirectly by propping up oppressive undemocratic dictatorships?

Religion, or totalitarian government, the opium of the masses.

Opiate* but I'm not really sure what your point is here.

 

[kochman]

Indeed, in WW1 there was no tremendous assault, but it was war nonetheless. In WW2, however, there was that spectacular attack. So it's entirely reasonable to assume the USSR would not be okay with another arrangement like they had before the war.

Sure, I understand wanting a defensive buffer... it is the way they did it that is so evil.

The USA had their own "puppet" in West Germany (albeit a republican government) and stationed troops there.

Are you kidding me? Puppet government in W Germany? That's patently absurd.

The USA actually put Nazis back into positions of power to accelerate the economic recovery of that region.

Many "Nazis" were simply opportunists. See the Pope, he was in the Hitler Youth, against his will. Did they probably employ some people that should've been in prison? Sure... Nothing was perfect. However, if you completely eliminate the power structure of a country, you end up with Afghanistan.

While this would not be a problem by itself (well...), it's very hypocritical to expect the USSR to retreat back behind its borders while the USA is free to occupy and militarize Western Europe, ostensibly for protection but possibly for aggression.

How many times did the USA deploy tanks against civilians during their "occupation"? None, they were there by the invite of the nations in question (except, perhaps for Germany, who understandably had lost their say in the matter!).

As a nation that suffered more from aggression than any other that century, it makes sense that the Soviets would be sensitive to militarization of any sort taking place on their borders.

The problem isn't being there, it is how they were there... why don't you get this?

You don't think fending off the Nazis had anything to do with it?

It actually helped industrialize the nation more. Was it a drain? Sure. In some ways.
I think you need to research economy and military/industrial complexes though.
Also, this was a galvanizing event for the Russians... it brought them together for a common purpose, which helped the nation as a whole (despite the losses).

I am always a little perplexed when people bring up troop numbers as if they're all you need. How do you explain The Winter War between the USSR and Finland?

Stalin had purged the Red Army of all its top generals in his paranoia. By 1945, they had a crack team of acceptable generals in charge.
Anyhow, numbers aren't all that matter, but without those numbers, they never would have beat Germany... They would have decimated us in W Europe. Trust me, I know what I am talking about here. If you'd like to know more, feel free to PM me, I have more, I just don't feel like exposing it to the world via the internets.

1. In 1945, the USA had two massive oceans separating it from the USSR. It had a relatively free populace and a strong industrial base. No attempt by the USSR to attack the USA could have been successful, especially with the USA's considerable Navy.

This ocean also made it harder for the USA to defend W Europe in a conventional war...
I never suggested the USSR was going to invade the eastern seaboard for crying out loud.

2. Later that year, the USA was established as having developed weapons of some considerable annihilation capacity.

Thank God.

3. In the 1980's, both the USA and the USSR had nuclear weapons. Whyyyy do troop numbers matter when, if either nation was about to be destroyed in conventional warfare, they could obliterate the other? It makes no sense. It's typical Cold War-gone-Hot military fetishization. If the Cold War went Hot, both nations would have been devastated in the ensuing nuclear conflict. End of story.

You really don't understand the military very well... do you? I assure you I have a better understanding than you do.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I didn't say the USSR were victims as such, just that they had reasons for doing what they did that weren't "we want to eat the West's babies."

Hyperbole is something that we can do without.

Painting the USA as some sort of hero is an insult to millions of oppressed blacks and hundreds of thousands of interned Japanese, not to mention the suppressed masses of Latin America. What's your point?

Blame America first... oppressed or dead... which would you rather be?

Oh, that was you:

I think you misunderstand what "genocide" means if you are saying I accused the USSR of genocide. I accused them of mass murder, I don't believe it was inspired by race.

[/quote]Well, then... don't say stuff like this.[/quote]
Saying a regime that killed millions and millions and kept its populace in a permanent state of paranoia is evil is not hyperbole.

Well, I'll bite.
1. How do you know how the average citizen felt?
2. Violence and thuggery aren't tools used by governments almost universally?
3. Which millions outside the USSR? Is this anything like the millions that the USA harmed indirectly by propping up oppressive undemocratic dictatorships?

1) This is well documented. That you would deny it is quite odd...
2) No. Not to the level the USSR went to.
3) Directly vs indirectly?... and again, I never defended the puppet governments, so I am not sure why you keep throwing this in my face as if I am. Please stop trying to frame the argument in a way that benefits you, and keep the argument within actual words used and ideas transmitted... it helps keep it interesting.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

It was thirty years ago this week that RR sent Secretary of State Al Haig to London and Buenos Aires to try to prevent the British from counter-invading. We never offered the Brits a lick of help.*

*OK except for some intelligence stuff.

 

[aronnax]

Sure, I understand wanting a defensive buffer... it is the way they did it that is so evil.

So let me get this straight. Propping up a dictatorial regime which oppresses and murders her own citizens is evil right?

So is invading another nation and stopping them from pursuing a popularly backed government right?

 

[kochman]

So let me get this straight. Propping up a dictatorial regime which oppresses and murders her own citizens is evil right?
So is invading another nation and stopping them from pursuing a popularly backed government right?

I already know where you're going with this.
Cuba had already invaded Grenada... sorry.

I never espoused supporting evil regimes, so please, this angle isn't going to work... you guys keep trying to frame my argument that way, it's tired.

Let me know how many millions of civilians the US and its "allies/puppets" killed, and then we will compare it to the USSR's total. If it is ANYWHERE near a 5:1 ration, we can talk about this... I suspect it will be closer to 1000:1, or higher.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I already know where you're going with this.
Cuba had already invaded Grenada... sorry.

I never espoused supporting evil regimes, so please, this angle isn't going to work... you guys keep trying to frame my argument that way, it's tired.

Let me know how many millions of civilians the US and its "allies/puppets" killed, and then we will compare it to the USSR's total. If it is ANYWHERE near a 5:1 ration, we can talk about this... I suspect it will be closer to 1000:1, or higher.

No one is claiming the USSR was innocent; indeed most of us seem quite opt to point out its own shortcomings as well.

However, we are arguing a different point then 'good' or 'evil'; we are pointing out motivation and reasoning for these actions, which do boil down to alot more then simple concepts of morality.

Indeed it seems you're the only one here up in arms over the moral integrity of a nation; in your case America... the crimes of our own cannot be denied or downplayed simply by claiming the USSR was an evil(er) empire.

The Cold War was a grey period of morality for both sides with neither being innocent or good in their record of foreign policy or intervention.

 

[kochman]

It was a grey area... but the USA can definitely claim the moral high ground.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I already know where you're going with this.
Cuba had already invaded Grenada... sorry.

I never espoused supporting evil regimes, so please, this angle isn't going to work... you guys keep trying to frame my argument that way, it's tired.

Let me know how many millions of civilians the US and its "allies/puppets" killed, and then we will compare it to the USSR's total. If it is ANYWHERE near a 5:1 ration, we can talk about this... I suspect it will be closer to 1000:1, or higher.

So then your method of determining how comparatively evil a regime is is based on how many people they've killed?

 

[Ajidica]

So then your method of determining how comparatively evil a regime is is based on how many people they've killed?

Are we looking at absolute number killed, or as a percentage of population? If we are going for percentage of population, then Oliver Cromwell and Charles I might be bigger murders then Hitler.

 

[kochman]

So then your method of determining how comparatively evil a regime is is based on how many people they've killed?

Because that's the only thing I mentioned and all... jeez...

 

[Behind The Mask]

It was a grey area... but the USA can definitely claim the moral high ground.

Only if you want to nitpick around their own crimes or give a double standard...

The immunity given to Unit 731 following WWII? The blood was on the hands of the Japanese but we cleaned it off for them... and that was truly dispicable.

The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and its effects? Horrendous.

Tuskeegee? Done to Americans?

Perhaps America had the moral highground; but it was on a molehill rather a mountain and if you can take pride in all of that then its a shame.

Moderator Action: Last line is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

Perhaps America had the moral highground; but it was on a molehill rather a mountain and if you can take pride in all of that then its a shame.

Perhaps!? Wow... the things you listed still pale in comparison to the massive levels of death, atrocities, fear, etc brought to the world by the USSR.

I disagree with you completely, and thanks for personally judging me... it really added to the conversation.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Perhaps!? Wow... the things you listed still pale in comparison to the massive levels of death, atrocities, fear, etc brought to the world by the USSR..

If anything these events are magnified by our love for freedom! We betrayed our morality there, what we held dear... we champion justice? There was no justice!

Unit 731 was perhaps one of the most vile things in history, its been called worse then nazi experiments if I recall! We turned a blind eye to that and game them immunity... That is sickening; we didn't commit the attrocities but given a chance a chance to pursue justice we turned from it.

Does that really pale in comparison? Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe we didn't have a molehill to call the highground, maybe it was even footing.

I disagree with you completely, and thanks for personally judging me... it really added to the conversation.

I never judged you; I judged history...

Spendid however that you would put words in my mouth while throughout this thread you have cried wolf that others were doing the same to you.