6 ms·

Both things are true. The Soviets were very afraid of NATO because NATO was always richer and had more population and industry. So the Soviets wanted a lot of b

Both things are true. The Soviets were very afraid of NATO because NATO was always richer and had more population and industry. So the Soviets wanted a lot of buffer. To have the front far away from Russia, and be able to fall back a long way before being forced to fight on Russian land. That is what the conquest of Eastern Europe was for. The propping up of communist states worldwide was an attempt to not get surrounded by American client states / satellites / allies. Look at China propping up North Korea. Why? Because they see South Korea as an American client state and they do not want to have a border with it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Strategic_Air_Com... for what made Soviets think maybe NATO is serious about first strike.

wolverine876 5y ago
Yes, the poor victim Soviets. Not expansionist at all. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want, but they did conquer other countries on a scale rarely seen in history. The rest, your claims about their motivations and poor victimhood, are baseless.
- the_af 5y ago
  > You can make up whatever rationalizations The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression. The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this. This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things. Also, > Not expansionist at all Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
  - konart 5y ago
    >Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath. Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here. (the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point): General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
  - vba616 5y ago
    >The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
    - aix1 5y ago
      For those unfamiliar with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... (esp. the Secret Protocol and the subsequent invasion of Poland).
      - vba616 5y ago
        Something I ran across while browsing related pages that I hadn't thought about, is the assertion that Germany got a huge amount of imported resources from the Soviets before they invaded that enabled them to engage in the devastating invasion, as well as carrying on the war with others.
        the_af 5y ago
        The assertion is dubious. I mean, yes, Germany imported resources from the Soviet Union. No surprise there. Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".

wolverine876 5y ago

Yes, the poor victim Soviets. Not expansionist at all. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want, but they did conquer other countries on a scale rarely seen in history. The rest, your claims about their motivations and poor victimhood, are baseless.

the_af 5y ago
> You can make up whatever rationalizations The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression. The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this. This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things. Also, > Not expansionist at all Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
- konart 5y ago
  >Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath. Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here. (the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point): General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
- vba616 5y ago
  >The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC. And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
  - aix1 5y ago
    For those unfamiliar with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... (esp. the Secret Protocol and the subsequent invasion of Poland).
    - vba616 5y ago
      Something I ran across while browsing related pages that I hadn't thought about, is the assertion that Germany got a huge amount of imported resources from the Soviets before they invaded that enabled them to engage in the devastating invasion, as well as carrying on the war with others.
      - the_af 5y ago
        The assertion is dubious. I mean, yes, Germany imported resources from the Soviet Union. No surprise there. Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".