3 ms·

I don't get it. Politics. In the 1980s the Green Party emerged in Germany, a powerful new left-wing party. Unlike most new parties, they didn't disappear qui

• bboygravity 7y ago
  I'm not one to easily believe the West's "the Russians did it" rhetoric, but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically. Or to put it in Putin's eloquent trolling words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E
  • 9q9 7y ago
    There are plenty of parties interested in preventing nuclear: oil producers, coal producers, gas producers, owners of oil and coal power plants. Also bear in mind that in the 1980s, when the anti-nuclear power movement became a serious political force, Russia as a state didn't exist. OTOH, the Soviet union was heavily invested in nuclear power.
• pjc50 7y ago
  Nah, the Green movement was there from the 60s and always against nuclear because of the weapons. Much of the fighting was over nuclear weapons testing, then later over nuclear waste disposal at sea. This came to a head with the French government's terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, causing the death of a photographer who was on board at the time. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill.
  • 9q9 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you are arguing for / and against. I did not say that everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. However, I've worked in enough political organisations to doubt that large scale grass-roots movements are likely only grass roots. I agree that the connection with nuclear weapons triggers powerful emotions against nuclear electricity generation. But nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons are not the same thing. (Cf. do you expect much opposition against nuclear fusion electricity because of hydrogen bombs?) Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union: for example the World Peace Council was set up by the Soviet Communist Party in 1948–50 to to campaign against nuclear weapons at a time when only the USA had them [1]. Given that oil and coal based electricity generation would have been vanquished by going full-in on nuclear electricity generation, I'd not be surprised if there had tacit or not so tacit support of anti-nuclear movements from ... interested parties. Rainbow Warrior The German Green Party was founded in 1980, Rainbow Warrior was in 1985. Much more important than the Rainbow Warrior event were the Three Mile Island accident (1979) and even more the Chernobyl disaster (1986). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...
    • pjc50 7y ago
      > But nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons are not the same thing. No, but distinguishing between the two from the outside can be tricky even for a small army of IAEA inspectors, cf the Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programmes. > Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union What I'm arguing against was your original "I've always wondered to what extent the anti-nuclear movements had tacit support from coal/oil producers/users." and the nearby comment "but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically."; it's very common these days to allege that people aren't who they say they are or are backed by shadowy forces, on the basis of zero evidence, and when this is levelled against the Left there's a whiff of McCarthyism there too. As you say, the Chernobyl disaster was the end of Europe believing that nuclear power was inherently safe. (The more I think about it, the more the reason nobody cared much about CO2 in pre-90s environmentalism was that the existential risk of nuclear war was seen as a much higher priority!)