• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Kilo_302 Defends The Soviet Empire[ split from] UN is rotten to the core

Status
Not open for further replies.

Long in the tooth

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Soviet Union in 1945 had suffered one of the greatest and tragic victories ever, on a scale of Rome's battle against Carthage.  In the last 150 years they had been invaded by the US, Britain, France, and Germany.  They had even been humbled by tiny Finland who could muster all of a dozen Vickers Tanks yet destroyed 2500 Soviet Tanks and 1000 Aircraft in 'the Winter War'.  I will make no attempt to defend the Gulags or other affronts to human rights.

The Soviet State in 1945 is one with enemies all along its border and an embryonic NATO complicated with an independent Nuclear France.  China is distancing itself and the separation of India and Pakistan (with Nuclear aspirations as well) further muddy the waters.

Now the Soviets may have been paranoid, but they also knew that as early as 1934 USAF Gen Curtis Le may had postulated the most efficient methods to destroy Japanese cities - fire.

Although we know a lot about Soviet Intelligence, how much do we know about British, American and even French (former close allies) penetration of Russian nets?

With over 25,000,000 dead, the Russians bore the brunt of the Nazis.  The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was a deal made with the devil.  In the Soviet's minds, one devil just seems to replace another.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
278
Points
910
Worn Out Grunt said:
...
The Soviet State in 1945 is one with enemies all along its border and an embryonic NATO complicated with an independent Nuclear France.  China is distancing itself and the separation of India and Pakistan (with Nuclear aspirations as well) further muddy the waters.
...

In 1945 the USSR faced almost universal good will, including from a newly elected Labour government in London and a war-weary government in Washington.  Berlin was in Russian hands and communist parties were on the verge of legitimate electoral success in Paris, Rome and Athens.

The ‘West’ did not even begin to solidify until late 1946.  The Truman Doctrine, followed by the Marshall Plan and NATO emerged, in large part, as a result of the now famous 12 March 1947 address to the US Congress by President Truman.  Things got kicked into action in the summer of 1948 when the Russians made a grab for power through the Berlin Blockade – an overt act of aggression.

The problems with China didn’t begin until the ‘60s; France’s force de frappe didn’t materialize until 1960 – more as a response to the Anglo-American nuclear monopoly in the West than as a threat to Moscow.

Relations with India have deteriorated and will continue to do so as India ties itself closer and closer to the ‘West’ – a grouping from which Russia is, historically (and currently) excluded.  Relations with China are on the mend, albeit on China’s terms because Russian ‘power’ is no longer visible in Asia.

Western reaction to Soviet/Russian sabre rattling, expansionism and outright aggression has been exactly that: a reaction.  Moscow’s undoubted problems all (including 1941/45) began in the Kremlin.  Russian leadership has swung, throughout the centuries, including the 21st century, between barbaric and inept; given that: problems and failure are inevitable.


Edit: typo - "... Labour government in ..."
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
I believe that was in response to US missiles being based in Turkey. In fact the Soviets demanded the removal of those US missiles and got what they wanted. Remember, this was also near the height of US missile dominance.

Read your history a little more.  Kennedy made the concession about the Jupiter missiles in Turkey willingly since they were obsolete anyhow.  It wasn't caving to a Soviet demand, it was an orchestrated concession to end the Crisis by giving Khruschev something to make a bit of press about at home.
 

dglad

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
As for the all the nations occupied by the USSR, point taken. Obviously not all (if any) welcomed the Soviets. My initial point remains the same however. The Americans are just as responsible (and in many ways more responsible) than the Soviets when it comes to the escalation of the Cold War.

This is an interesting, if specious, argument.  One could also share the blame for WW2 with the Commenwealth, France, the US and the Soviet Union...although few rational people would be likely to.

As for the countries occupied by the USSR, I believe one would be hard-pressed to find one that DID "welcome" them.  Your point about seeing an end to a united Germany after WW2 is valid, but again, not the point.  NATO did not occupy West Germany; it was established as, remained and remains a progressive democracy.  The USSR DID occupy eastern Europe, using military force as a means to maintain control.  They didn't hesitate to use this force, brutally, in Czechoslovakia or Hungary when those countries made even tentative moves towards self-determination.

Again, I would point to the US record of military interventions (frequently unilateral) around the world. I am not going to list all the instances where the United States overthrew foreign governments (some democratically elected) through either military interventions or CIA sponsored coups. This should be self-evident. And again, I can count only six times that the USSR engaged in aggressive foreign miitary actions.

One would be hard-pressed to defend many US foreign policy decisions.  But again, that's not the point.  Your thesis was that the USSR was not an aggressor.  If they conducted foreign military adventures even once, they are, by definition, an "aggressor"...so you have undermined your own argument by acknowledging their "six" aggresive foreign military actions.  It would be more correct to say that, because they were attempting to hold together an empire established through aggressive military action (starting under the Czars, and propagated into the 20th Century under the "communists"), most of their aggressive military action was directed inward.  Their external adventures were conducted more by proxy (through Egypt, Syria, Cuba, N Vietnam, etc.)

To say the US was also aggressive is correct.  To say the USSR was NOT aggressive is simple apologism that ignores a pretty unambiguous (because many of us lived it) historical record.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
54
Points
560
Kilo_302: "Now it should be quite obvious that I was not referring to Mongolia or Myanmar etc . However, there are US bases in the 'stans as we speak. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian and US airbases are mere miles from each other. George W. Bush has been making overtures in Vietnam, and in SE Asia in general."

In other words there is no "encirclement"--just some small stuff in the wild west.  And any encirclement would have to include Russia which clearly is not part of your plot.  Admit the facts or change your terminology--I would agree there may be an emerging confrontation but it is basically China/Russia on one side with US/Japan/Taiwan (and maybe sometime India) on the other.

Mark
Ottawa
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Yet another example of how revisionist "history" has replaced the study of History in schools and Universities. I suppose we will be hearing about the "Great Leap Forward" and how Canada should emulate Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" next.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
a_majoor said:
Yet another example of how revisionist "history" has replaced the study of History in schools and Universities. I suppose we will be hearing about the "Great Leap Forward" and how Canada should emulate Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" next.

Didn't we just have that five or ten years ago with 'Chretian's Little Red Book'?
 

safeboy43

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
George Wallace said:
Didn't we just have that five or ten years ago with 'Chretian's Little Red Book'?
+1

Kilo_302 said:
There has never been a true Communist state.
Wow, I love this one too. I'm not disagreeing with you on this one but I think you should have spent some time in the USSR or even present day Russia if you think like that. The government is run corrupt and in recent days (after collapse), is completly run by the Mafia. If you don't call that communism try and move to North Korea or some place similar. I think you will find everything you are looking to support. Rule by fear, domminant attitude and a corrupt government.

Enjoy your visit,
Twitch :cdn:

 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gentelmen this young man is not a Stalinist or even a closet commie, he is just a raging anti
american he believes all the evil in this world is somehow the fault of G.W.Bush and his evil imperialistic
country, the United States of America.In this he is not alone, our places of higher learning are full
of people who share his ideas.So IMHO we should just let him rave on and not take him too
seriously after all most of us with a somewhat wider, less blinkered view of the world should find
his opinions quite entertaining and so so predictable.
                         Regards
 

Trinity

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
time expired said:
Gentelmen this young man is not a Stalinist or even a closet commie

Good

Cause we have Fred.. and he's the resident Communist (or so we joke about)
here at Army.ca.  I'd hate to see him lose his position as it's all he has left
in the world.  ;)
 

FredDaHead

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Trinity said:
Good

Cause we have Fred.. and he's the resident Communist (or so we joke about)
here at Army.ca.   I'd hate to see him lose his position as it's all he has left
in the world.   ;)

I thought I was also the resident in-the-closet guy, too? :p I can give up the resident Commie position, really.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You are sooo funny.  This time you made no mention of the Soviets making a strike against the US to prevent the US making a 'First Strike'.  I would suggest you lay off those korner drugs

You are right. I must be taking drugs if you of all people fail to understand English. For what is now the third time, read more carefully.

"I thought I explained what a first strike capability is in a previous post, however I will attempt to explain it again.  First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying or degrading its nuclear weapons to the point where the attacking country can withstand the retaliatory strike. By being capable of hitting American cities (at this point Soviet missiles weren't accurate enough to reliably target US launch facilities), all the Soviets could guarantee was that millions of Americans would die if the US struck first. The USSR would still inevitably be destroyed. So in fact it was the United States who enjoyed a "first strike" capability until the 1970s, and American policymakers strove to achieve this. The USSR possessed what was called "minimum deterrence".

The Soviets WERE NOT capable of a first strike against the United States as they could not target US nuclear silos. Again, their weapons were not accurate enough. A first strike depends on that nation being able to survive the response. The Soviets would not survive a US response if they struck first. The US WOULD survive a Soviet response if THEY struck first, however the cost in civilian lives would be high. This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence."


But I guess your grammar could be in need of improvement, along with your communications skills

Are we going to start doing this instead of debating?

Chretian's

Does anything pop out at you?
 

old medic

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence.

minimum deterrence ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301054.html

Western agents received their best information not through psychological manipulation and complex schemes but through Soviet and East European defectors who offered themselves up voluntarily. Col. Ryszard Kuklinski, the Polish Warsaw Pact liaison, passed 35,000 pages of mostly Russian documents to the West because he'd seen plans for a Russian invasion of the West, during which Poland would be destroyed.

 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Invasion plans mean nothing. It is the job of professional soldiers to plan for any contingency, however unrealistic. Most NATO exercises in Germany centered around a Soviet invasion, just as most Soviet exercises centered around a NATO offensive. Canada and the US were both making plans to invade each other as late the 1920s for Christ's sake!
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
The Soviets WERE NOT capable of a first strike against the United States as they could not target US nuclear silos. Again, their weapons were not accurate enough. A first strike depends on that nation being able to survive the response. The Soviets would not survive a US response if they struck first. The US WOULD survive a Soviet response if THEY struck first, however the cost in civilian lives would be high. This is why the Soviets practiced "minimum deterrence."

Now you are getting it.  That was not what you were saying at first.  You were talking about the Soviets striking the US to eliminate their First Strike capabilities, which would have made them the ones to commit the First Strike.  It is all there in your posts (Too late to Edit them, as they have been quoted several times.), recorded for posterity in Black and White.

So we have now decided that you are not a Communist, as you really don't have what it takes; but just a very Anti-American historical revisionist with a poor grasp of what you post.  

Take it away Kilo_302...................
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Kilo_302 said:
.......  just as most Soviet exercises centered around a NATO offensive. .

And where did you come up with this gem of information?  Have you any experience at all in this matter?  Have you talked to anyone who is experience in this matter?  I am sure if you had done any research into the matter you would have found that statement to be completely false.  If you really want, there are many on this site who "Were There" and can tell you that you are full of crap.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are many on this site who took part in Soviet exercises?!

Their scenarios, equivalent to ours, always start with a NATO offensive, then after twenty-four hours or so they sort of turn this around and they start plodding through to the Rhine to counter this.

Adm. Robert Falls, chairman of the NATO military committee, 1980-83
 

old medic

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow.... You should stop and go research what soviet leaders were telling their own people.
 

dglad

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, it appears that your argument, kilo32, is something along the lines of, the US was an aggressor, so the USSR wasn't.  Does this sum it up?  Because you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the USSR wasn't aggressive in its pursuit of foreign policy, including seizing every possible opportunity to further its interests and expand its influence, by overt or covert means.  You've tried to argue that the US did MORE of this, so that makes the USSR somehow less of an aggressor.

The trouble is, this is a complete logical fallacy.  If I show you two fires, one hotter than the other, does that indicate that the cooler of the two isn't hot?  If your answer to this is no, then your essential argument is flawed.

More generally, is it possible that the US and USSR were, throughout the Cold War, both very aggressive states, willing to use all sorts of means to gain advantage and consolidate their power globally, short of resorting to open war?  If your answer to this is yes, this is possible, then your essential argument is, once again, flawed.

That leaves, then, two states, both vying for some form of global supremacy.  Now, based on their human rights records, economic performance, environmental track-records and general standard of living, which would be preferable to have as the "winner"?  Or, if you don't like it framed that way, try this...if we accept that the Cold War was going to end, and that end wasn't going to be as a result of some form of mutual annihilation, then it would be reasonable to accept that one power would emerge ascendant--a "hyperpower".  Which of the US or USSR would represent the least bad alternative?

(I would add that if it was to be the USSR, then we would have a global hyperpower based on a Stalinist legacy of mass execution on a virtually unprecendented scale, a centralized, state-controlled economy characterized by hyper-inefficiency, a record of environmental abuse and damage that dwarfs the worst Superfund site in the US, and a standard of living barely above that of a 3rd world country for the vast majority of its citizens, few of whom had any meaningful input into state policy or affairs.  I know what my choice would have to be.)
 

dglad

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kilo_302 said:
I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are many on this site who took part in Soviet exercises?!

Adm. Robert Falls, chairman of the NATO military committee, 1980-83

Adm Falls was mistaken.  In fact, I was in Germany in 1981, working at 4 CMBG HQ.  The Warsaw Pact exercise that ran concurrent with our final ex had nothing to do with a NATO invasion; it was, very much, a show of force intended to demonstrate just what the Warsaw Pact was capable of doing.  Ours was focused on defense against a WP strike out of Czechoslovakia, into Germany through the Hohenfels area.  We thought, at the time, that it was very decent of them to show us just what that would look like, on their side of the border.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top