U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

Log-in to remove advertisement.

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

Total votes : 44
Post 17 May 2012, 09:34
Afghanistan never asked for help. This is a total myth. The actual president was murdered by some Soviet traitors.
Post 18 May 2012, 21:46
OP-Bagration wrote:
Afghanistan never asked for help. This is a total myth. The actual president was murdered by some Soviet traitors.

Uhm, source?
Post 24 Jul 2012, 17:48
I think neither was good, because there was loads of civilians on both sides. I would have just supported the DRA rather than directly intervening to keep civilian deaths down, like India did.
Post 24 Jul 2012, 18:35
What about when Soviet special forces went in and assassinated Hafizullah Amin at his palace? This was not an act of imperialism to assassinate the leader of a country? I have heard it was because he was supposedly too extreme in his policies and threatened to alienate the Afghan populace. Relations between Afghanistan were also rumored to be increasingly pro-Chinese and pro-USA during his years. Fair enough that the Soviets were concerned, however they still took the initiative.
Post 25 Jul 2012, 00:03
In assassinating Amin, the Soviets basically helped the Parcham faction of the PDPA to stage a coup d'etat. As you've alluded to, it was done in the interest of deradicalization, Amin's short time in power having turned most of the country against Kabul. The Soviets were an outside 'third force', but they definitely had support with the Afghan communist party, whose Parcham faction was sick of Amin's fanaticism and of his brutal methods even against other party members (most of the Parcham faction had been imprisoned, and of course there's the issue of the assassination of president Taraki, who had been a close friend personally to Brezhnev). Repeated reports that Amin may have been manoeuvring toward China or the USA probably helped to tip the scales in favour of the special forces raid.
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:03
I think is has some problems but generally yes.
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:18
I should look again in my sources, but the coup against Amin was decided by a very few members of Soviet leadership against any democratic principle. And I should remind you that the Soviets tried to kill Amin by poisoning him. It failed because he was healed by the doctor of the Soviet embassy. Amin had a total confidence in the USSR, and the embassy of course knew nothing about the coup. How surprizing since it was also, in a way, a coup in the Soviet Union. Let's imagine a strange scenario: Amin had some good relations with some parts of the Soviet leadership. But another part of the Soviet leadership disagreed with him and decided to secure their own power in the Soviet system. Who would benefit from the crime? Who would benefit from a war?
Post 22 Jan 2013, 15:09
Other: I can't decide. Both - Afghanistan and Vietnam were civil wars. But thing is, Afghan legal government was accepted by UN, so Soviets helping to fight against radical islamists were good thing.
Post 22 Jan 2013, 20:33
They weren't civil wars. They were like Syria today, reactionaries propped up by imperialists even though they don't come close to representing those they rule. False rebellions.

Vietnam was the open attack on a nation's self-determination, Afghanistan was another violationof self-determination but in the form of a terrorist rebellion.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]