4 ms·

There’s nothing inconsistent about the Soviets favoring nuclear energy for their own country while promoting anti-nuclear propaganda in the West.

Arrath 2y ago
In fact its self serving, in that reducing your own reliance on oil frees up more of your production for sale. Lets not forget that the latter Soviet Union was in large part propped up by the proceeds from its oil sales.
ethbr1 2y ago
That feels like disempowering Western European environmental movements excessively. They weren't Soviet puppets: they formed their own positions and advocated for them. (Another reason I missed above: the conflation of nuclear power with nuclear weapons)
- philwelch 2y ago
  I would say that "useful idiots" is a better term than "puppets".
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It's a shortcut to an argument to remove agency and substitute in a foreign hand, but it rarely captures the reality of a situation. There's usually far too much squabbling inside a given volunteer group for any external pressure to be able to redirect their will.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      The Western antinuclear movement had their own agency and motivations, but because they happened to align with Soviet interests they may have received material support from the Soviets. If they did, that would make them useful idiots rather than puppets. Useful idiots mean well, they have more than enough good intentions to pave a long road with, and they are completely unwitting when it comes to whatever role they had to play in the broader geopolitical conflict.
aguaviva 2y ago
Actually it is obviously inconsistent. (I think you meant to say, "It may seem inconsistent on the surface, but if it serves their overall agenda it can still make sense for them", or something like that). But that's not the concern here. Which is simply: even after several iterations on this topic -- no one seems to be able to point to any actual indications of the Soviets having promoted such propaganda in the West.
- philwelch 2y ago
  > Actually it is obviously inconsistent. What the hell are you talking about? That’s like saying it’s inconsistent for a basketball team to try and score points while also trying to prevent the opposing team from also scoring points. It’s certainly adversarial, but so was the geopolitical relationship between the Soviet Union and the West. > I think you meant to say… Don’t patronize me. I meant to say exactly what I said.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The basic messaging ("Nuclear power is good for me, but not for thee") is plainly and obviously inconsistent. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand why you would contest this. The hypothesized messaging, that is. There's no evidence of such a propaganda campaign from Soviet side in those years (cover or overt), so this entire discussion is moot anyway.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      It would be inconsistent if the Soviet Union took that line in their own public messaging, but no one is alleging that.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        There's no need to "allege" that they did. There was tons of propaganda to that effect in 1950s/1960s (just as there was in the U.S. at the time, though this has been largely forgotten). For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/atom_for_peaceful_purposes_soviet_poster_1960/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/a... It's also why the Chornobyl facility was officially named the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Plant, and so on. The only thing they didn't do was "promote anti-nuclear propaganda in the West".
pydry 2y ago
The soviets built some nuclear plants in the west - e.g. in Finland. That does make it inconsistent. More to the point it's still a rather harebrained conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Finland wasn't in the West in the context of the Cold War; it was part of the "third world" that the West and the Soviets competed for influence over.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Finland was absolutely part of the West, despite its non-aligned status. It was definitely not "third world", and you aren't even using the term correctly. As Wikipedia explains: In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Movement, and seldom self-identified as part of the Third World.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      > Finland was absolutely part of the West, despite its non-aligned status. You’re making a tedious semantic argument while conceding my central point, that Finland was non-aligned. I’ve heard of respectful disagreement but you’ve managed to pull off disrespectful agreement.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The only point here is that, throughout the course of this thread - you've been consistently very sloppy both with basic geographic and historical facts, and in your core logic regarding this completely untenable theory about alleged Soviet influence that you've been holding onto. And when people do fact-check you, you say they're making "tedious semantic arguments", or being disrespectful. There's nothing disrespectful in their doing so, of course. They're just setting the record straight -- again, chiefly in regard to this nutty theory you've been promoting. If anything, they're doing you a favor. Though I do agree that this discussion has gotten quite tedious.

Arrath 2y ago

In fact its self serving, in that reducing your own reliance on oil frees up more of your production for sale. Lets not forget that the latter Soviet Union was in large part propped up by the proceeds from its oil sales.

ethbr1 2y ago

That feels like disempowering Western European environmental movements excessively. They weren't Soviet puppets: they formed their own positions and advocated for them. (Another reason I missed above: the conflation of nuclear power with nuclear weapons)

philwelch 2y ago
I would say that "useful idiots" is a better term than "puppets".
- ethbr1 2y ago
  It's a shortcut to an argument to remove agency and substitute in a foreign hand, but it rarely captures the reality of a situation. There's usually far too much squabbling inside a given volunteer group for any external pressure to be able to redirect their will.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The Western antinuclear movement had their own agency and motivations, but because they happened to align with Soviet interests they may have received material support from the Soviets. If they did, that would make them useful idiots rather than puppets. Useful idiots mean well, they have more than enough good intentions to pave a long road with, and they are completely unwitting when it comes to whatever role they had to play in the broader geopolitical conflict.

aguaviva 2y ago

Actually it is obviously inconsistent. (I think you meant to say, "It may seem inconsistent on the surface, but if it serves their overall agenda it can still make sense for them", or something like that). But that's not the concern here. Which is simply: even after several iterations on this topic -- no one seems to be able to point to any actual indications of the Soviets having promoted such propaganda in the West.

philwelch 2y ago
> Actually it is obviously inconsistent. What the hell are you talking about? That’s like saying it’s inconsistent for a basketball team to try and score points while also trying to prevent the opposing team from also scoring points. It’s certainly adversarial, but so was the geopolitical relationship between the Soviet Union and the West. > I think you meant to say… Don’t patronize me. I meant to say exactly what I said.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  The basic messaging ("Nuclear power is good for me, but not for thee") is plainly and obviously inconsistent. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand why you would contest this. The hypothesized messaging, that is. There's no evidence of such a propaganda campaign from Soviet side in those years (cover or overt), so this entire discussion is moot anyway.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    It would be inconsistent if the Soviet Union took that line in their own public messaging, but no one is alleging that.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      There's no need to "allege" that they did. There was tons of propaganda to that effect in 1950s/1960s (just as there was in the U.S. at the time, though this has been largely forgotten). For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/atom_for_peaceful_purposes_soviet_poster_1960/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/a... It's also why the Chornobyl facility was officially named the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Plant, and so on. The only thing they didn't do was "promote anti-nuclear propaganda in the West".

pydry 2y ago

The soviets built some nuclear plants in the west - e.g. in Finland. That does make it inconsistent. More to the point it's still a rather harebrained conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it.

philwelch 2y ago
Finland wasn't in the West in the context of the Cold War; it was part of the "third world" that the West and the Soviets competed for influence over.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Finland was absolutely part of the West, despite its non-aligned status. It was definitely not "third world", and you aren't even using the term correctly. As Wikipedia explains: In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Movement, and seldom self-identified as part of the Third World.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    > Finland was absolutely part of the West, despite its non-aligned status. You’re making a tedious semantic argument while conceding my central point, that Finland was non-aligned. I’ve heard of respectful disagreement but you’ve managed to pull off disrespectful agreement.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The only point here is that, throughout the course of this thread - you've been consistently very sloppy both with basic geographic and historical facts, and in your core logic regarding this completely untenable theory about alleged Soviet influence that you've been holding onto. And when people do fact-check you, you say they're making "tedious semantic arguments", or being disrespectful. There's nothing disrespectful in their doing so, of course. They're just setting the record straight -- again, chiefly in regard to this nutty theory you've been promoting. If anything, they're doing you a favor. Though I do agree that this discussion has gotten quite tedious.