Speculative History Spin-Off: the Soviet Union

[sgrig]

In the 80's and in early 90's, the general public in Russia adored foreigners and in my opinion, nationalistic ideas would not be successful if the cold war continued. The reason why recently nationalism gained quite a lot of popularity in Russia is very simple. Despair. In early 90's people hoped that the West is going to help Russia rebuild and that soon Russia will become as prosperous as the western countries, however when the reforms went badly wrong, people started blaming the West for sabotaging Russia, and hence nationalistic feelings grew. Also as the economic situation deteriorated, tensions between ethnic groups within Russia grew.

So in my opinion, without such disappointments which happened in the 90's, nationalism would not be popular in Russia.

It is however true that by the end of 80's hardly anyone believed in communist ideals, so if there was somebody instead of Gorbachev who wanted to control the Soviet Union, he would have to be a very big hypocrite. That's why, as I said in one of my first posts, Gorbachev was too honest to keep the country together.

Btw, afaik, fascism involves more than just nationalism. Fascism also involves downgrading of other nationalities, ie 'we are the superior race, while other are inferior'. I don't see how that could apply to modern-day China. China may be quite nationalistic, but I don't think they actually declare that they are superior to other nations.


To Vrylakas: I should've checked your profile before getting into that prolonged debate with you. A first-year maths student can't hope to beat a professional historian in a history debate. As for my knowledge of Soviet realities, I do remember quite a bit actually, but a lot of what I know about life in the Soviet Union is from what my parents and my grand-parents told me. Btw, Soviet healthcare was probably not one of the best examples of the achievements of communism, oh well...

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by Beammeuppy


What if: The Soviets had used a different approach and had managed to get control of Afghanistan. Developments of the last 4 months show it is possible to inflict a change in government.

War in Afghanistan certainly demoralised the Soviet population a lot, cost huge sums of money and dispelled the myth of the Soviet Army's invicibility. It also severely damaged the relations between USSR and the West. I guess if the war did not take place at all, there might not have been such an escalation of Cold War in the early 80's, so USSR would not become bankrupt so quickly, and hence would not collapse so soon.

Concerning different approaches...

In Afganistan, Soviets did install a puppet government, but troops were sent to Afghanistan to support that government which faced faced fierce mujahedeen resistance. So eventually this turned into a protracted and futile war. (Vrylakas is probably going to correct me as to what actually happened in Afghanistan

What the Americans did recently in Afghanistan is replacement of one government by another which is the stage in which the Soviets succeeded. It is still not clear how strong the opposition will be to the new Afghani government, especially that large number of Taliban fighters are still at large and have their weapons hidden somewhere. So it is not obvious that the end of conflict in Afghanistan is reached. (By the way I do not intend to have a debate on the situation in Afghanistan, this is just my opinion to explain my conclusions)

My conclusion is that if Soviet Union got involved in any way in the war in Afghanistan, then the final outcome would be the same as what actually happened. However, there could've been a difference if the Soviet Union did not get involved in Afghanistan.

There is another scenario, which is very unrealistic, what would happen in Afghanistan if the US did not support the mujahedeen? Only in that case I believe USSR could've crushed the Afghan resistance. I think eventually Soviet leaders planned to accept Afghanistan as the 16th union republic.

(By the way does anyone know that somewhere in the 60's or even early seventies Bulgaria submitted an application to be accepted to the Soviet Union, but the application was rejected because Bulgaria and USSR did not share a common border?)

 

[Vrylakas]

Sgrig wrote:

In the 80's and in early 90's, the general public in Russia adored foreigners and in my opinion, nationalistic ideas would not be successful if the cold war continued. The reason why recently nationalism gained quite a lot of popularity in Russia is very simple. Despair. In early 90's people hoped that the West is going to help Russia rebuild and that soon Russia will become as prosperous as the western countries, however when the reforms went badly wrong, people started blaming the West for sabotaging Russia, and hence nationalistic feelings grew. Also as the economic situation deteriorated, tensions between ethnic groups within Russia grew.

So in my opinion, without such disappointments which happened in the 90's, nationalism would not be popular in Russia.

There were indeed unrealistic expectations all throughout the former Soviet Bloc about showers of Marshall Plan aid money from the West. Few really understood the changes that needed to happen, and the pain they would cause. Add in some corrupt or incompetent politicians and bureaucrats, and some countries - Russia, Romania - drowned in their reforms, turning to hyper-nationalism. You're right Sgrig that nationalism in the 1990s was much stronger than the 80s (and much more ethnically based) but there still was a powerful sense of nationalism in the Soviet Union. I remember reading an article in Novaja Vremja (remember them?) about how Russians were angrily weeping in theaters in 1969 that showed newsclips of the Americans landing on the moon.

It is however true that by the end of 80's hardly anyone believed in communist ideals, so if there was somebody instead of Gorbachev who wanted to control the Soviet Union, he would have to be a very big hypocrite. That's why, as I said in one of my first posts, Gorbachev was too honest to keep the country together.

Honest and naive. As I said earlier though I think that without Gorbachov the Soviet Union would have broken apart violently.

Btw, afaik, fascism involves more than just nationalism. Fascism also involves downgrading of other nationalities, ie 'we are the superior race, while other are inferior'. I don't see how that could apply to modern-day China. China may be quite nationalistic, but I don't think they actually declare that they are superior to other nations.

I would disagree, though it would be helpful if someone else - at this point I usually ask someone like Knight-Dragon for help - could clarify. My impression is that the Chinese are indeed very nationalistic currently, and see themselves as being historically, culturally or morally superior to the West. You're right - fascism is more than just nationalism; it is nationalism hijacked by a government that uses it as a state ideology to justify its own stranglehold on power. Ledeen makes the point that this sounds like China currently.

To Vrylakas: I should've checked your profile before getting into that prolonged debate with you. A first-year maths student can't hope to beat a professional historian in a history debate. As for my knowledge of Soviet realities, I do remember quite a bit actually, but a lot of what I know about life in the Soviet Union is from what my parents and my grand-parents told me. Btw, Soviet healthcare was probably not one of the best examples of the achievements of communism, oh well...

Gosh... Relax Sgrig; I'm not a professional historian, and even if I were that wouldn't make me infallible. I'm a bond market researcher. Academically my background is in history and I'm still mulling getting my doctorate and spending the rest of my days having innane history arguments...like this one...

For your comments on Afghanistan - no, I'm not going to take issue with your description of the Soviet-Afghan War - but I think the larger issue in Afghanistan is a fundamental failure for any authority to establish an effective national government. The only ones who came close since 1974 turned out to be too ideologically extreme, and they provoked yet another foreign intervention in poor, miserable Afghanistan. The question now is if the Americans will be effective in keeping the country's centrifugal political forces from tearing things apart again, and unfortunately the current American president is not exactly a visionary.

 

[amadeus]

The Soviet-Afghan war was pretty much the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union...it was just a matter of time.

After all, how strong could a country be if it had the world's largest military, but couldn't take over a small little (*$& country controlled by some warlords?

 

[Vrylakas]

rmsharpe wrote:

After all, how strong could a country be if it had the world's largest military, but couldn't take over a small little (*$& country controlled by some warlords?

A small country like Vietnam...?

The Soviet Army's problems in Afghanistan, much like the U.S.' in Vietnam, was one of tactics. It did create a major PR problem for the Army, but moreso at home than abroad.

 

[Hamlet]

For The USSR to have survived it would have needed to:

-Somehow quell rising democracy movements. (Less of an important factor than the rest.)

-Total economic and fiscal restrucuring, particularly a removal of the reliance on heavy industry.

And more besides I can't remember.

In other words, it was pretty much buggered since the 70's.

 

[allhailIndia]

Well, the USSR was on the brink of an Abyss in 1989, Gorby took a brave step forward

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I remember reading an article in Novaja Vremja (remember them?) about how Russians were angrily weeping in theaters in 1969 that showed newsclips of the Americans landing on the moon.

I'm not sure if that's nationalism, it was more of a feeling of disappointment.

I would disagree, though it would be helpful if someone else - at this point I usually ask someone like Knight-Dragon for help - could clarify. My impression is that the Chinese are indeed very nationalistic currently, and see themselves as being historically, culturally or morally superior to the West. You're right - fascism is more than just nationalism; it is nationalism hijacked by a government that uses it as a state ideology to justify its own stranglehold on power. Ledeen makes the point that this sounds like China currently.

I know a number of Chinese people, they are certainly very proud of their cultural achievement and always like to point out that 5000 years ago when China already had a coherent government system, Europeans were still practically in stone age, wearing hides and living in caves. And if not for certain events, like the Mongol invasion, etc, China could've been the world's most advanced country.

Gosh... Relax Sgrig;

For your comments on Afghanistan - no, I'm not going to take issue with your description of the Soviet-Afghan War - but I think the larger issue in Afghanistan is a fundamental failure for any authority to establish an effective national government. The only ones who came close since 1974 turned out to be too ideologically extreme, and they provoked yet another foreign intervention in poor, miserable Afghanistan. The question now is if the Americans will be effective in keeping the country's centrifugal political forces from tearing things apart again, and unfortunately the current American president is not exactly a visionary.

I agree.

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Well, the USSR was on the brink of an Abyss in 1989, Gorby took a brave step forward

Good one!

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by Vrylakas

A small country like Vietnam...?

The Soviet Army's problems in Afghanistan, much like the U.S.' in Vietnam, was one of tactics. It did create a major PR problem for the Army, but moreso at home than abroad.

Yeah it's true. Both in Afghanistan and even in now in Chechnya, Russian commanders still tend to use WW2 tactics, ie with a massive force invade a country, capture the main cities, install road-blocks, and then sit and wait until the guerillas kill off soldiers one by one.

Luckily for USA, they had Vietnam earlier rather than later, so they were able to transform their armed forces based on the Vietnam experience, so IMO this was one of the reason's for America's success in Gulf War, etc.

Russia however did not take part in major wars between WW2 and Afghanistan, so the armed forces were still being prepared for a full-scale European war, which did not really help in Afghanistan. It was also impossible to restructure the armed forces after Afghanistan because of the chaos which resulted after collapse of USSR, so the same mistakes were repeated in Chechnya.

Also Americans realised during Vietnam War that conscipts aren't a reliable fighting force, too many of them are killed and this creates too much dissent at home (war weariness, in Civ3 terms). Russian generals still cannot realise that by having a large conscript army they are not going to achieve anything.

Sorry, it seems I've gone off-topic quite a bit.

 

[allhailIndia]

I think the guerillas were not too much of a threat till they recieved massive influx of arms from US and Pak. The guerillas of Vietnam were better tacticians and they had the advantage of cover as well. The Russians were pretty much slaughtering Afghans with their choppers till Stingers came to the rescue. :rocket2:


P.S. Would'nt it have been the ultimate blowback if a US plane was brought down with a Stinger in Afghanistan

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by allhailIndia

P.S. Would'nt it have been the ultimate blowback if a US plane was brought down with a Stinger in Afghanistan

Yeah it would... But aren't Stingers fitted with friend-foe recognition system, so they won't fire at US aircraft?

In Chechnya, the rebels had a problem using Russian-made equivalents to Stinger, because of the friend-foe thing - those missiles just wouldn't fire at Russian helicopters and other aircraft. So the Chechens then resorted to using basic unguided grenade-launchers to down helicopters.

PS The Vietnamese also received a massive influx of weaponry and 'technical advisors' from USSR and China. There is a joke in Russia:

"Latest news: The famous Vietnamese air ace Li-Si-Tsin downed today 2 more US aircraft in sky over North Vietnam." (Lisitsin is a Russian surname!! )

 

[DingBat]

Off topic, but there's also another couple of amusing Vietnam stories I've heard:

It seems the Russian advisors were always annoyed because the Vietnamese tended to fire off SAM's like machine guns. On the other hand, I believe the Vietnamese once sent a message to their Soviet patrons which read:

"Stop sending surface to air missiles. Send surface to aircraft missiles instead."

/bruce

 

[Vrylakas]

Sgrig wrote:

Russia however did not take part in major wars between WW2 and Afghanistan, so the armed forces were still being prepared for a full-scale European war, which did not really help in Afghanistan. It was also impossible to restructure the armed forces after Afghanistan because of the chaos which resulted after collapse of USSR, so the same mistakes were repeated in Chechnya.

Also Americans realised during Vietnam War that conscipts aren't a reliable fighting force, too many of them are killed and this creates too much dissent at home (war weariness, in Civ3 terms). Russian generals still cannot realise that by having a large conscript army they are not going to achieve anything.

Sadly these are old lessons, and repeated often in Europe. Even in the American Revolution, the British applied European military tactics (assuming America to be as urban as Europe) and seized all the major American cities at one point or another during the war - Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Charleston - but to no effect. Occupying a European capital usually meant the end of the war; occupying an urban center outside of the modern world is often inconsequential.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Btw, afaik, fascism involves more than just nationalism. Fascism also involves downgrading of other nationalities, ie 'we are the superior race, while other are inferior'. I don't see how that could apply to modern-day China. China may be quite nationalistic, but I don't think they actually declare that they are superior to other nations.

I would disagree, though it would be helpful if someone else - at this point I usually ask someone like Knight-Dragon for help - could clarify. My impression is that the Chinese are indeed very nationalistic currently, and see themselves as being historically, culturally or morally superior to the West. You're right - fascism is more than just nationalism; it is nationalism hijacked by a government that uses it as a state ideology to justify its own stranglehold on power. Ledeen makes the point that this sounds like China currently.

Why do I always get dragged into your discussions?

You're are right - the Chinese do see themselves as superior to the West in those terms i.e. historically, culturally and morally. But not as a racial group or in terms as God's chosen people or something like that. Cause the Chinese is a very diverse racial group (imagine all Europeans as a racial group).

But of course, there're always bad apples (as with any people on earth) who'll see themselves as racially superior. But generally, the Chinese are not very racist. Or at least, better than the Japanese.

However, recent Chinese nationalistic tendencies are really being engineered by the Communist regime as they're looking for a replacement ideology. Chinese Communism, as a state doctrine, is morally bankrupt now in China cos of mkt capitalism so the CCP is looking for a replacement to justify their continued hold on power.

 

[Vrylakas]

Actually, why not just ask ol' Gorby himself here on 7. March, at 13.30 (GMT)?

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Why do I always get dragged into your discussions?

But of course, there're always bad apples (as with any people on earth) who'll see themselves as racially superior. But generally, the Chinese are not very racist. Or at least, better than the Japanese.

Bad apples? Not really. There aren't really any Chinese bad applies because there aren't any Chinese in China. The real Chinese are in Taiwan.

Racist? Yeah, I feel they can be in some ways, but pretty benign ways though. I friend of mine in Japan calls it's more xenophobic than racist. I call it benign racism.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Sgrig
That's why, as I said in one of my first posts, Gorbachev was too honest to keep the country together.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Honest and naive. As I said earlier though I think that without Gorbachov the Soviet Union would have broken apart violently.

He seemed like a very nice man. Definitely well intentioned.

Consider the irony of an honest and naive personality, this kind of man, that rises to such a position of power, and exercise his power in a well-meaning and uncorrupt way. He deserved to be named the father of modern Soviet Union. The former Soviet Union does not deserve Gobachev. They should have been handed a mass murderer.

History does Gorbachev no justice.

 

[Pellaken]

well, you are right. in 1985, the ussr was in collapse... the branch history USSR story I'm trying to devlop has to do with 1979... what if a new leader had taken over then?

currentley, what I have, is a eastern bloc today, that is full of spaish or greek type 1st world nation (rich, but not that rich) that are all strong but liberal socailist states. I also predicted, that Italy, France, and Germany would have all joined this bloc by electing in socalist governments.