3 ms·

Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. They was also an 'ally' in WW2, I think 'enemy of my enemy' would be a more ap

Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. They was also an 'ally' in WW2, I think 'enemy of my enemy' would be a more apt term. The Soviets were an authoritarian mass murdering regime (Stalin murdered 4-5 million on purpose in Ukraine, but that's just one small item on the list) that already ruthlessly ruled much of Central Asia, and the only reason the Czechs, E. Germans, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians etc. were in the 'Warsaw Pact' was due to forcible acquiescence at the point of a gun: those states were nation-sized prisons, forcibly monitored by Stasi or Stasi-like forces, who were in turn monitored by the KGB, in very draconian terms. Meanwhile, NATO was made up of very willing participants. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we can see where those states more or less landed in terms of alignment. The Soviets were all over the world trying to take control of individual government groups, providing money, intelligence, weapons etc. in order to take direct control of government, and have them controlled in much the same manner they did Poland, Hungary etc.. and where they were successfull it was bad. The American model exemplified by US support of House of Saud is excessively benign: don't attack the US or the world order, don't align with the Soviets or China, sell your goods to whoever you want but at free market prices, maintain stable governance ... and that's that. In Chile, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, problems 'came to ahead' due to very direct influence of the Soviets and we're still reeling from it to this day. Not to overstate things entirely, but during the Wiemar Republic, Stalin had complete and direct control over the German Communist party, who had ~17% of the Bundestag, and they had their own 'thug forces' out there beating people up, killing police (on a couple of occasions). Needless to say, could you imagine some antagonizing foreign dictatorship directly controlling 17% of UK Parliament or US Congress? I wouldn't say that was a primary cause of anything, but at least pretty big driver of what followed.

oblio 5y ago
> Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the *birth* of the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia, no matter what you may think of its morals, was an ally of the Western powers. It fought together with them, it was completely exhausted by the war, it collapsed. Immediately after its collapse, the Western powers, acting very much like hyenas (US, UK, France, Japan, etc), invaded their former ally. The new Russian factions fought each other and fought off the invaders. How do you look internal politics look in a country in such a situation? Do you think moderates have any chance? When your former allies are betraying you, your country was ravaged by war and is now in a civil war? The hypothesis was that we will never know for sure if Russia wouldn't have gotten a more moderate socialist government without foreign invasion. It's an "what if" scenario.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes, Imperial Russia was definitely a different thing altogether. But it's a stretch to say that those countries 'invaded' Russia. There was 'backing' of a side during a revolution, that's not the same thing. The American revolution was supported by France and the American civil war had 'backing' by other parties. I don't think the backing of outside powers is hugely relevant to that outcome, that said, the point in general (i.e. actual outside invaders) is reasonable. I think it's different in every situation though. I mean Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Libya ... all so different there's hardly a common thread other than '2 sides during the Cold War'.

oblio 5y ago

> Let us please dispense with the moral ambiguity of our view of the Soviet Union. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the *birth* of the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia, no matter what you may think of its morals, was an ally of the Western powers. It fought together with them, it was completely exhausted by the war, it collapsed. Immediately after its collapse, the Western powers, acting very much like hyenas (US, UK, France, Japan, etc), invaded their former ally. The new Russian factions fought each other and fought off the invaders. How do you look internal politics look in a country in such a situation? Do you think moderates have any chance? When your former allies are betraying you, your country was ravaged by war and is now in a civil war? The hypothesis was that we will never know for sure if Russia wouldn't have gotten a more moderate socialist government without foreign invasion. It's an "what if" scenario.

jollybean 5y ago
Yes, Imperial Russia was definitely a different thing altogether. But it's a stretch to say that those countries 'invaded' Russia. There was 'backing' of a side during a revolution, that's not the same thing. The American revolution was supported by France and the American civil war had 'backing' by other parties. I don't think the backing of outside powers is hugely relevant to that outcome, that said, the point in general (i.e. actual outside invaders) is reasonable. I think it's different in every situation though. I mean Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Libya ... all so different there's hardly a common thread other than '2 sides during the Cold War'.