They had their share, but it’s at the very least 10 times less, certainly even more, than the west. Do you have some examples in mind ?
However yes, they supported what they called the “liberation movement” from the “exploitative bourgeoisie”, and failed almost every time once the west reacted. They didn’t thought about it as defending their own interests, but acting in solidarity with other workers.
If you’re talking about Afghanistan then they had the support of the government, just like France in Mali a few years ago(, who kept putting forward this argument in the malian case, but almost certainly ignored it with afghans)(, in any case afghans hate the west as well now, it’s one of my favourite countries, pledging to become islamic/virtuous, critised for being too different and allegedly immoral).
The examples are almost endless, but it’s worth noting that it was revealed two days ago that the west supported Imran Khan’s arrest, thousands of kilometers from our borders. Do you know how the u.s.a.(, and western Europe really,) was called in my highscool ? The policemen of the world. What seemed like a harsh criticism was in fact a dull euphemism.
Hum, they liberated them from nazi Germany ? Are you talking about the Warsaw Pact ?
Still angry at Yugoslavia for not supporting more actively the greek communists, you know which side the “free world” was on in the greek case(, and you can bet that the soviets wouldn’t have let Franco stay in power if their victory wasn’t stolen).
If you’re saying that they installed puppet governments, why can’t i say that the u.s.a. installed puppet governments in western Europe after they prevented the u.s.s.r. from liberating the rest of Europe from rentier capitalism ?
Hold up, are you saying that because the USSR has a hand in defeating the Nazis they’re free to get first dibs over their territory? Because it sure as fuck sounds like that’s what you’re saying and that sure as fuck sounds like colonialism.
Also I dunno about you but the USSR seemed pretty damn intent on trying to invade Finland, and there weren’t any Nazis in Finland when the first war started.
They were a part of the Warsaw pact, not the u.s.s.r., if they called dibs over the territory they would have the same leader.
For the accusations of puppet states see the answer you replied to, i could say the same about n.a.to., the c.i.s., the e.u., … How to be united in diversity is an interesting topic of conversation
As for Finland, not only was it not invaded by the communists, but they were the ones signing its independence from the russian empire.
Was the u.s.s.r. a country or a union ? Even modern Russia is a federation, we don’t accuse the e.u. of having invaded other european countries, that’s partly why this topic of “diverse yet united” is so interesting.
So um, last time I checked the EU didn’t force any of its members with invasions and occupations and ultimatums to join and they sure as fuck didn’t force the UK to stay, which the same can absolutely not be said about the USSR. Also there is a big difference between an economic area and a military treaty and a political union. Brussels is not micromanaging the entire EU, while Moscow was doing just that in the USSR. It was one big country with the smaller countries acting as states, not as independent entities under the same big umbrella.
Also Finland was Absolutely invaded by the Soviets. Twice even. And it was partly justified by Stalin’s dissatisfaction about the fact that the Soviets had failed to stop Finland’s independence because that relationship was absolutely not hunky dory like you seek to think it was. Like where did you think molotovs come from? And speaking of Molotov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact kinda made it clear what the Soviets thought was their territory and it included the Baltics as well as Finland. And if you consider the occupation and deportation and assimilation of the Baltic states into the USSR as a “consentual” thing, by that logic then Poland was a willing member of the Nazi empire because hey, it’s from the same pact outlining the two regimes sphere of influence with similar outcomes.
And that’s during WW2. Threat of an invasion from the USSR is literally why NATO was founded, and why the USSR forced Finland to remain neutral.
Once again diprount_tomato was talking about countries outside of the u.s.s.r., those inside were there before, sometimes for centuries.
But even inside the u.s.s.r., they weren’t forced to stay once it dislocated, despite being much more integrated than the u.k. ever was, not sure we could tell the same about the u.s.a. if one of your states decided to leave
For Finland, you’re absolutely right for the first link you provided about the Winter war, thank you very much for the correction, i already knew about the Molotov cocktails named after their enemy so i should have remembered, seems like they were still salty about this loss of territory, i.d.k., yet i also provided arguments in favor of an initial “hunky dory” relation, it’s possible that it degraded over time for reasons other than merely territorial, perhaps like in Ukraine, i wouldn’t be surprised if Finland was used as an anti-communist spearhead and that security reasons weren’t that much of an excuse. Some further reading would need to be done.
As for the baltic states, they were in the russian empire as well, before the u.s.s.r., you can’t blame them for refusing to destroy everything once they took power, we wouldn’t have done so in their position.
And once again Poland wasn’t part of the u.s.s.r., cf. my remarks on the puppet states if that’s the road you want to take. I could agree that states of the Warsaw pact were influenced by their leaders just like countries in the n.a.t.o. are influenced by their american leader.
What you called soviet invasion and american liberation would have been called exactly the opposite by the french communists.
And were you still talking about Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in your last comment ? Because they weren’t in the u.s.s.r. but in a military/… alliance, like n.a.t.o., the e.u., or the c.i.s. Is it because their republics were different than ours ? It’d be another talk then.
Why would it be b.s. to start with China ? You do know that they would have recovered Taiwan more than 70 years ago if it wasn’t for the american naval forces ?
But whatever, i can’t force you to open your eyes, do what you consider to be just, and thanks for reading my comments.
Yeah, and the Soviet Union literally invaded countries to set up puppet regimes
They had their share, but it’s at the very least 10 times less, certainly even more, than the west. Do you have some examples in mind ?
However yes, they supported what they called the “liberation movement” from the “exploitative bourgeoisie”, and failed almost every time once the west reacted. They didn’t thought about it as defending their own interests, but acting in solidarity with other workers.
If you’re talking about Afghanistan then they had the support of the government, just like France in Mali a few years ago(, who kept putting forward this argument in the malian case, but almost certainly ignored it with afghans)(, in any case afghans hate the west as well now, it’s one of my favourite countries, pledging to become islamic/virtuous, critised for being too different and allegedly immoral).
The examples are almost endless, but it’s worth noting that it was revealed two days ago that the west supported Imran Khan’s arrest, thousands of kilometers from our borders. Do you know how the u.s.a.(, and western Europe really,) was called in my highscool ? The policemen of the world. What seemed like a harsh criticism was in fact a dull euphemism.
Not gonna talk about Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. They literally invaded those countries when they wanted to be free
Hum, they liberated them from nazi Germany ? Are you talking about the Warsaw Pact ?
Still angry at Yugoslavia for not supporting more actively the greek communists, you know which side the “free world” was on in the greek case(, and you can bet that the soviets wouldn’t have let Franco stay in power if their victory wasn’t stolen).
If you’re saying that they installed puppet governments, why can’t i say that the u.s.a. installed puppet governments in western Europe after they prevented the u.s.s.r. from liberating the rest of Europe from rentier capitalism ?
Hold up, are you saying that because the USSR has a hand in defeating the Nazis they’re free to get first dibs over their territory? Because it sure as fuck sounds like that’s what you’re saying and that sure as fuck sounds like colonialism.
Also I dunno about you but the USSR seemed pretty damn intent on trying to invade Finland, and there weren’t any Nazis in Finland when the first war started.
They were a part of the Warsaw pact, not the u.s.s.r., if they called dibs over the territory they would have the same leader.
For the accusations of puppet states see the answer you replied to, i could say the same about n.a.to., the c.i.s., the e.u., … How to be united in diversity is an interesting topic of conversation
As for Finland, not only was it not invaded by the communists, but they were the ones signing its independence from the russian empire.
Was the u.s.s.r. a country or a union ? Even modern Russia is a federation, we don’t accuse the e.u. of having invaded other european countries, that’s partly why this topic of “diverse yet united” is so interesting.
So um, last time I checked the EU didn’t force any of its members with invasions and occupations and ultimatums to join and they sure as fuck didn’t force the UK to stay, which the same can absolutely not be said about the USSR. Also there is a big difference between an economic area and a military treaty and a political union. Brussels is not micromanaging the entire EU, while Moscow was doing just that in the USSR. It was one big country with the smaller countries acting as states, not as independent entities under the same big umbrella.
Also Finland was Absolutely invaded by the Soviets. Twice even. And it was partly justified by Stalin’s dissatisfaction about the fact that the Soviets had failed to stop Finland’s independence because that relationship was absolutely not hunky dory like you seek to think it was. Like where did you think molotovs come from? And speaking of Molotov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact kinda made it clear what the Soviets thought was their territory and it included the Baltics as well as Finland. And if you consider the occupation and deportation and assimilation of the Baltic states into the USSR as a “consentual” thing, by that logic then Poland was a willing member of the Nazi empire because hey, it’s from the same pact outlining the two regimes sphere of influence with similar outcomes.
And that’s during WW2. Threat of an invasion from the USSR is literally why NATO was founded, and why the USSR forced Finland to remain neutral.
Once again diprount_tomato was talking about countries outside of the u.s.s.r., those inside were there before, sometimes for centuries. But even inside the u.s.s.r., they weren’t forced to stay once it dislocated, despite being much more integrated than the u.k. ever was, not sure we could tell the same about the u.s.a. if one of your states decided to leave
For Finland, you’re absolutely right for the first link you provided about the Winter war, thank you very much for the correction, i already knew about the Molotov cocktails named after their enemy so i should have remembered, seems like they were still salty about this loss of territory, i.d.k., yet i also provided arguments in favor of an initial “hunky dory” relation, it’s possible that it degraded over time for reasons other than merely territorial, perhaps like in Ukraine, i wouldn’t be surprised if Finland was used as an anti-communist spearhead and that security reasons weren’t that much of an excuse. Some further reading would need to be done.
As for the baltic states, they were in the russian empire as well, before the u.s.s.r., you can’t blame them for refusing to destroy everything once they took power, we wouldn’t have done so in their position.
And once again Poland wasn’t part of the u.s.s.r., cf. my remarks on the puppet states if that’s the road you want to take. I could agree that states of the Warsaw pact were influenced by their leaders just like countries in the n.a.t.o. are influenced by their american leader. What you called soviet invasion and american liberation would have been called exactly the opposite by the french communists.
Because the US didn’t invade countries that weren’t 100% subservient to them
WHAT ?
Here’s a longer list if you’re interested : https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
Oh man, it is the number one “policeman” by far. Here’s an example :
Here’s a source from the congress itself, even if it doesn’t include covert/unofficial operations it’s still quite lengthy : https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42738
I.d.k., what more proofs do you want ?
And were you still talking about Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in your last comment ? Because they weren’t in the u.s.s.r. but in a military/… alliance, like n.a.t.o., the e.u., or the c.i.s. Is it because their republics were different than ours ? It’d be another talk then.
You know the list is bs when it starts with China
Why would it be b.s. to start with China ? You do know that they would have recovered Taiwan more than 70 years ago if it wasn’t for the american naval forces ?
But whatever, i can’t force you to open your eyes, do what you consider to be just, and thanks for reading my comments.
Because they were supporting Chiang Kai-Shek against the Communists, not doing a coup you sicklebrain