Why wasn't Finland turned into a Soviet Puppet State?

[Verbose]

This is freedom?

Is it less freedom than this?

 

[amadeus]

Is it less freedom than this?

Oh, give me a break...

 

[luiz]

Not true, thats the People's Republic of China. Soviet Union clocks in at less then half of what Mao alone killed.

It is widely accepted that Stalin killed much more than Mao.

Plus many of Mao's deaths were the result of gross mismanagement and pathetic economic planning, and not imprisionment and executions.

 

[Verbose]

Oh, give me a break...

Why?
I didn't start with the histrionic appeal to emotion.

 

[amadeus]

There were no mass executions under Batista, no Stalinist media censorship, nothing remotely like the things that Castro has done.

How many times did you hear about pre-revolution Cubans trying to flee Cuba?

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is widely accepted that Stalin killed much more than Mao.

Plus many of Mao's deaths were the result of gross mismanagement and pathetic economic planning, and not imprisionment and executions.

Mao is usually attributed with 40-60 million deaths to his name, including several million in Soviet Style labor camps, and deliberate Genocide. However, "mismanagement" is not the word I would use to describe it, that implies that it was simply a foolish mistake. Mao knew exactly what his plans demanded, and simply did not care. He continued to export foodstuffs, even sending foodstuffs for free to self-sufficient nations like Yugoslavia to try and win political favor, while his countrymen starved by the millions. The victims of the Great Leap Forward were victims of Mao the same as the victims of the Holodomor are victims of Stalin.

 

[C~G]

There were no mass executions under Batista, no Stalinist media censorship, nothing remotely like the things that Castro has done.

You cannot be serious...

 

[Verbose]

How many times did you hear about pre-revolution Cubans trying to flee Cuba?

No that is hardly ever brought up these days. Like everything from the pre-Castro days. At least in the US. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[amadeus]

You cannot be serious...

Are you kidding? Every year, until the revolution, Cuba's immigration quotas were full. Cuba routinely had to reject shiploads of migrants from Europe.

 

[C~G]

Are you kidding? Every year, until the revolution, Cuba's immigration quotas were full. Cuba routinely had to reject shiploads of migrants from Europe.

I wasn't referring to immigration, I didn't quote that part.

I was referring to those things that like you would describe that he was nice fellow. He was much as of a bastard as Castro, no doubt about that. Or maybe you don't acknowledge that since you just oppose Castro, which is pretty weak when considering facts about history.

It's little bit like going against Hitler but defending Stalin just because they opposed each other. Or maybe it's because Batista had the backing up of US government that gives your full support to him.

What comes to immigration. It doesn't prove nothing. Many unpleasant places have had quite high immigration rates including numerous places in US

 

[warpus]

But the only time an actuall invasion actually became likely was during the crisis, which tells something about the deterrant quality of those missiles.

Uhm, Bay of the pigs?

 

[luiz]

Uhm, Bay of the pigs?

Was Bay of Pigs an american invasion?

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, it most definitely was! It's a well established historical fact that the CIA organized the invasion, and arranged the air support.

It this doesn't amount to an invasion of one country by another, then what will? They might be irregular troops, but they were nonetheless troops acting a the bequest of the US government.

 

[luiz]

Yes, it most definitely was! It's a well established historical fact that the CIA organized the invasion, and arranged the air support.

It this doesn't amount to an invasion of one country by another, then what will? They might be irregular troops, but they were nonetheless troops acting a the bequest of the US government.

No american troops took part in it, that's a pretty good indicative that it was not an american invasion. Every single one of them were cuban nationals, so that makes BoB more like an internal conflict where one side was supported by a foreign power.
Of course it was supported by the CIA, but that doesn't make it an american invasion. If the US wanted they could take Cuba in half hour, you know it as well as I do. BoB was an american intervention in Cuba, which is not quite the same as an invasion. Note that I'm not making any judgement of value here, merely pointing out some facts.


Are the FARCs the result of a soviet invasion of Colombia? It's a known and documented fact that they received soviet weapons, money and training...

 

[innonimatu]

No american troops took part in it, that's a pretty good indicative that it was not an american invasion. Every single one of them were cuban nationals, so that makes BoB more like an internal conflict where one side was supported by a foreign power.

Pfff… that was the excuse tried in 1961… and quickly dropped in the face of mounting evidence that the invasion had been planned at the highest levels of the US government. An internal conflict doesn’t start with the amphibious landing of a whole brigade.
And who cares about the claimed nationality of the invaders, they were acting at the bequest of, and using means provided by, the US government. An irregular army working for a state is still an army, and when it invades another country it's still an invasion.

BoB was an american intervention in Cuba, which is not quite the same as an invasion. Note that I'm not making any judgement of value here, merely pointing out some facts.

No, you are not pointing out facts, you are misrepresenting facts. That particular "intervention", as you would have it named, involved an invasion by what was a military force armed and trained by the US, based in the US, and supported by the USAF (Kennedy later cut that support, but it did happened at the start of the invasion). Therefore it was an invasion.

Hell, even the CIA itself clearly states it:

The cornerstone of this collection is a two-volume, 400-plus page document consisting of (Volume I) the CIA Inspector General's (IG) Report on the CIA's ill-fated April 1961 attempt to implement national policy by overthrowing the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba by means of a covert paramilitary operation, otherwise known as the Bay of Pigs, and (Volume II), a commentary on the IG report written by the Directorate of Plans (DP), now known as the Directorate of Operations (DO).

Read the report available on-site. Right in the introduction, pages 9-10, it clearly calls the Bay of Pigs an invasion:

1. The history of the Cuban project begins in 1959 and for the purposes of the survey ends with the invasion of Cuba by the Agency-supported Cuban brigade on 17 April 1961 and its defeat and capture by Castro's forces in the next two days.

Read the rest of the report. The invasion plans considered before settling on what became known as the "Bay of Pigs Invasion" are extensively discussed - and those plans are admitted to have been prepared by US officials, therefore it was an american endeavor, whether or not the pawns used were cubans. Educate yourself before presuming to rewrite history, and you'll avoid at least some future embarrassments.

Are the FARCs the result of a soviet invasion of Colombia? It's a known and documented fact that they received soviet weapons, money and training...

Is the current government of Colombia the result of an US invasion? Is a well known fact that they received US weapons, money and training...
You're making spurious comparisons! The Soviet Union never trained and landed a whole brigade in Colombia, never provide them with air support in a move aimed at quickly overthrowing the government of Colombia. In fact I bet you’d be hard pressed to come up with any evidence that the FARC received any relevant soviet aid at all…

 

[luiz]

An internal conflict doesn’t start with the amphibious landing of a whole brigade.

Says who? I didn't know there were particular rules of how one must start an internal conflict. Do you have a rule book that I should know about?

And who cares about the claimed nationality of the invaders, they were acting at the bequest of, and using means provided by, the US government. An irregular army working for a state is still an army, and when it invades another country it's still an invasion.

"Claimed nationality"
All invaders were either killed or arrested, and all were cubans.

Yes, they were beign trained, armed and whatnot by the US government, but that doesn't change the fact that they were cubans fighting for a regime change in their country.

No, you are not pointing out facts, you are misrepresenting facts. That particular "intervention", as you would have it named, involved an invasion by what was a military force armed and trained by the US, based in the US, and supported by the USAF (Kennedy later cut that support, but it did happened at the start of the invasion). Therefore it was an invasion.

Hell, even the CIA itself clearly states it:

Eh, and who said that a paramilitary operation equals a US invasion? Furthermore you can implement a policy of overthrowing Castro without invading - you can aid the opposition or assassinate him, both or which were indeed tried by the CIA repeatdly.

Read the report available on-site. Right in the introduction, pages 9-10, it clearly calls the Bay of Pigs an invasion:

Read what you posted. Of course it was an invasion, and of course it was backed by the agency, but it was a "cuban brigade". Where does it say "US invasion"?

Read the rest of the report. The invasion plans considered before settling on what became known as the "Bay of Pigs Invasion" are extensively discussed - and those plans are admitted to have been prepared by US officials, therefore it was an american endeavor, whether or not the pawns used were cubans. Educate yourself before presuming to rewrite history, and you'll avoid at least some future embarrassments.

You are the one misinterpreting what you posted yourself. Yes, it was all orchestrated by the CIA - which doesn't change the fact that we are talking about cubans who actually wanted a regime change in their nation. They were acting on self interest, not as mercenaries as you want to make it seem. The fact that their interest coincided with that of the CIA doesn't change the fact that it was their interest.

If the US wanted an american invasion, why not send the Marines or bomb Cuba to oblivion, etc etc etc

Learn to read, specially the links you post, and save yourself the embarassment.

Is the current government of Colombia the result of an US invasion? Is a well known fact that they received US weapons, money and training...

Well you were the one coming up with that logic. And if you want to stick with it that the gvt. of Cuba would also constitute a soviet invasion. But I don't buy that logic.

You're making spurious comparisons! The Soviet Union never trained and landed a whole brigade in Colombia, never provide them with air support in a move aimed at quickly overthrowing the government of Colombia. In fact I bet you’d be hard pressed to come up with any evidence that the FARC received any relevant soviet aid at all…

It's a well known fact that FARC leadership was trained by the soviets, as is that the soviets provided weapons (nearly all the weapons captured from the FARCs are of soviet origin, regardless of the fact that the URSS never officially sold any weapons to Colombia).

Summing up, it was an american intervention, a US-backed invasion, an US operation, a CIA plot etc etc... but a real US invasion would result in the death or arrest of Castro. Don't worry, you can still bash the US for it... just don't make out of it more than it was.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Wow, Finland wasn't mentioned once in this entire third page!

OK, back to topic, from the first page, I am getting from all the link supplied that the Soviets were still fighting WWII when they were held off from their attempt to occupy the country. Small fry with a large cost to occupy.

Then after the war, the Finns spurned western help at the same time as marginalizing the internal communist party by not voting for them. Other stuff happened, then the cold war set in. Small fry with large cost to occupy.

Sounds like they pulled off a partial Switzerland, or a puffer fish.

 

[Verbose]

Sounds like they pulled off a partial Switzerland, or a puffer fish.

They pulled off being Finland. Unlike the Swiss in the last couple of centuries, the Finns have had to fight for it.

 

[innonimatu]

OK, I don't want to hijack the thread, so this will be my last post on the side subject of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Yes, they were beign trained, armed and whatnot by the US government, but that doesn't change the fact that they were cubans fighting for a regime change in their country.

Of course it does. The people in the french foreign legion may not be french citizens, but it the french government has it invade another country then it's a french invasion, obviously! Those cubans were used in the same way: they were acting on behalf of the US government, following a US plan, using US material and benefiting from US support (and there were american pilots taking part in the operation, FYI).
Trying to assassinate Castro is not an invasion. Landing a military force on Cuba most definitely is an invasion. And an american one, for all the reasons I gave above.

Yes, it was all orchestrated by the CIA - which doesn't change the fact that we are talking about cubans who actually wanted a regime change in their nation. They were acting on self interest, not as mercenaries as you want to make it seem. The fact that their interest coincided with that of the CIA doesn't change the fact that it was their interest.

You're admitting that: 1) it was an invasion; 2) it was orchestrated by the US government. And at the same time you're claiming it wasn't an american invasion, just because regular military units were not used? Give me a break!

Summing up, it was an american intervention, a US-backed invasion, an US operation, a CIA plot etc etc... but a real US invasion would result in the death or arrest of Castro. Don't worry, you can still bash the US for it... just don't make out of it more than it was.

A full-scale US invasion would end in diplomatic disaster, that's why further support was canceled and no invasion with regular units was attempted. But a blotched invasion is still an invasion.

 

[Princeps]

But the only time an actual invasion actually became likely was during the crisis, which tells something about the deterrant quality of those missiles.

Indeed, and JFK displayed stunning irresponsibility during the conflict, taking US close to an “ultimate doom”. That’s one of the reasons why I despise the man.

The rhetoric existed much before the revolution.

Yes --- because a US backed tyrant ruled over Cuba, just like strong anti-Russian and pro-independence rhetoric existed in Finland during the Sortokausis. Before and after the civil war, strong anti-bolshevist rhetoric existed --- but here comes the difference, after the Second World War, Soviets did not aggress against Finland, unlike Americans who pursued a policy of stubborn aggression against Cuba – thus relations improved and the anti-soviet rhetoric calmed down in Finland.

They were a strongly anti-american group before taking power, naturally after they did take power relations with the US were damaged.

Just like the high classes of Finns who ruled over Finland were strongly anti-soviet.

And the difference is, Finland chose to largely ignore the Soviet Union

No, no, no, Finland never ignored Russia.

while Cuba adopted an openly confrontationist approach that lasts untill today, in a watered-down manner.

No, Cuba adopted the policy due to American aggression and support for the previous Cuban dictatorship. If US had chosen a more rational policy towards Cuba, relations would’ve eventually calmed down – they usually do.

Well of course during the war the finns would try to gain controll of soviet lands. But after the war, did they send money and trained troops of rebels in Poland or Hungary?

No – but as I said, Finland was a significant threat to the Soviets – much greater than whatever the American establishment could conjure to regiment their people and to punish their puppets. The difference is substantial but largely irrelevant --- the form the threat took was different from what Cuba posed to the Americans... but what is essential is that the Soviets evantually solved it by peaceful means. If Soviets had chosen to pursue more aggressive policies towards Finland after their failed assaults on Finland, like US did in the case of Cuba, than obviously there would’ve been far more organized anti-soviet movements in Finland.

Panama is probably the one who suffered the most american intervenions and it seems to be doing fine.

I'd say Nicaragua. The death toll in Nicaragua from the U.S. terrorist war (which was lead by no other than John Negroponte) per capita, relative to population, would be the same as about 2.5 million dead in the United States, which is higher than the total number of American deaths in all wars in the U.S. History, including the Civil War. Thus to Nicaragua, the war was immensely destructive.

The war was waged from Honduras -- where US had its mercenary armies camped. It was Negroponte's job to supervise those contra camps in Honduras, from which the C.I.A. mercenary army was attacking Nicaragua, which wasn't exactly a small affair, since he had to insure that congress didn't get upset about the fact that the Honduras run security forces were carrying out tortures and massacres. US terrorist war in Nicaragua isn't even controversial... but nevertheless rarely mentioned.

When the democracy which was favoured by the US and Soviet elites (the democracy where you have virtually a gun pointed to your face and if you vote for a candidate they don't like, another terrorist war will be waged against your country) was established in Nicaragua and a US backed candidate won, propaganda rags like The pravd.... uh I mean, the New York Times had big headlines saying ‘Americans united in joy…’, sort of like the North Koreans.

Since the U.S. took it over again, Nicaragua declined to the second poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti, which was the main target of U.S. military intervention in the 20th century. Malnutrion is widespread, with children suffering from likely brain-damage. Almost half of the active labour force has moved away etc.

Colombia? So aiding the government against drug-dealing rebels is "aggression"?

United States has been financing death squads to protect its interests in Colombia. The US backed; corporate playthingie government is extremely oppressive and has a long record of crushing popular movements, dissent and all forms opposition to its kleptocratic rule. The brutal paramilitaries (which are some of the worst human rights violators in the world today) and the repressive military collaborate and wage war against the civilian population and resistance movements with US backing. They fight for the interests of the multinational corporations, not to root out drug production -- which is the usual pretext. Indeed, many of them are undoubetly involved in drug trade.

What about Chile? I don't remember ever seen a picture of an american tank in Santiago.

But I remember one certain US backed dictator with a ridiculous name.

No nation is forced to take their loans.

Yes well, I’m too tired now to explain the workings of IMF (structural adjustment etc) but lets just say that their irresponsible policies contribute greatly to world poverty.

The Soviet Union was the state that killed the most in the history of the human race.

Now when you say that Soviet Union did it, you imply that the state killed them all --- which I sincerely doubt: Although I do not defend Soviet state capitalist totalitarianism, there were undoubtedly other unintentional factors like disaster, famine, incompetence etc, which played greater role in causing the number of deaths.

While for example, United States has through deliberate acts of aggression in Vietnam, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East-Timor, Palestine, Central America etc caused the deaths of millions. Deliberate US sanctions and aggression against Iraq has no doubt resulted in the deaths of several millions. US aggression and irresponsible support for mass murderers, when all the cases are combined, leaves US at least partly responsible for the deaths of tens millions of people and for massive poverty, political and economic upheaval. To say that US was, in any conceivable way, more benign than the Soviet Union, is quite frankly ridiculous--- In fact, US was probably the far more aggressive and expansionist side of the cold war.

When the US starts building gulags, and executing "enemies of the people" after a half-hour trial we can discuss this.

Well, you know, I think funding death squads to secure corporate interests in sufficiently close.

Are you saying that trade with the US is necessary to avoid poverty? That the entire rest of the world is not enough?

No --- again, is it so hard to comprehend? US government and corporations have huge sway in world politics and finance… if they decide that no one should trade with Cubans without suffering consequences, trade to Cuba remains limited.

Besides, it’s not only that. Do you know why US still controls Gitmo? I know why, it is a major port in the area – thus controlling it will severely hamper development in Eastern Cuba. Also, US has for decades waged a terrorist war against Cuba, which continues today.

Anyway, considering how much Castro hates and criticises the US, his burning desire to trade with them never made much sense to me.

Well, obviously much doesn’t make sense to you. Usually when a foreign power terrorizes your people for decades and strangulates your economy you kinda start disliking the power. However --- your argument is based on the ridiculous notion that socialists oppose trade, which is not true as long as trade is genuine.

Specially when he has repeatdly criticised Latin American nations with strong trade relations with the US.

Well, obviously for a very good reason. The Latin American rich elites often irresponsibly embrace the neoliberal economic order, with the cost of their poor. Given the nightmarish past of the so-called US “trade” in the South America, one should be careful when trading with them.