Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Soviet Dominance Over Other Socialist States

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 07 Jul 2008, 18:50
Do you believe that the Soviet Union was right in wanting dominance over other Socialist states? I believe that they were right since they were the first country to start building Socialism. They had the largest economy, the largest army, and were the one's who most likely supported the buildup of Socialism in that country. I don't think the Soviet Union should control other Socialist nations as puppet states, but the one that the country should consult before anything.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jun 2008, 21:19
Komsomol
Post 07 Jul 2008, 19:08
I agree.

The Soviet Union was certainly the strongest socialist country of its time and it was the right thing to turn to it for economic help. It was also the mandatory task of the Soviet nation to spread revolution in other countries and assist them.
Of course they influenced the way to socialism in the nations dependant on them. This is one of the things I didn't like that much about the whole eastern bloc. There was a very strong Russian Soviet influence in most of the countries and they had to do its bidding.
But history has shown that you could be more independent if you wanted to, Albania, Yugoslavia and China being good examples.
Image

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Jul 2008, 07:41
Correction. They had the only army. The rest of WarPac responded directly to Soviet High Command.
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 08 Jul 2008, 17:56
I wasn't only referring to the Warsaw Pact, but also Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, N. Yemen, etc.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 09 Jul 2008, 02:09
Well the Soviets definantly had controll over the Warsaw Pact states, and Cuba basically let the Soviet Union controll them. Then other states like Vietnam and Yogoslavia weren't under either Soviet or China's influence.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 09 Jul 2008, 03:42
Quote:
Cuba basically let the Soviet Union controll them.

The Soviets didn't control Cuba. They actually considered Cuba a big headache especially under Khrushchev-Brezhnev. They weren't supportive of Cuba's war in Angola. Vietnam was also independent itself, the USSR supported them against Chinese influence in Cambodia.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4415
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 09 Jul 2008, 04:38
First off, the USSR did not want 'dominance' over the states of Eastern Europe. Their transformation was the result of the intensification of the Cold War. Initially, Stalin had hoped only to ensure that the states maintained a foreign policy neutral in stance in regards to the Soviet Union.

Secondly, even at the peak of Soviet power, the USSR didn't control any states (in Eastern Europe or elsewhere) as mere 'puppets' reflecting the Soviets' own priorities. As I've mentioned before, Albania eventually chose to abandon the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon, Romania under Ceacescu remained a pain for the Soviets until the end of his regime, Poland and Hungary both chose to join the IMF and World Bank even as the Soviets disapproved, Poland maintained private agricultural production despite the Soviet model, Hungary had many elements of market economy, East Germany refused to initiate a perestroika of their own in the late 1980s, Cuba (as has been mentioned) has engaged in international conflicts without Soviet requests or orders, and Vietnam initiated market reforms back in the early 1980s.

Finally, I do agree that the Soviet Union, as the first, most powerful (economically and militarily) and most capable socialist state, did have a duty to advance and protect the ideology of Marxism-Leninism abroad in the context of the Cold War, despite accusations of 'social-imperialism' and realist power games. Soviet support was vital for the establishment and entrenchment of virtually every socialist regime across the globe, and their regression and collapse thereafter was a direct consequence of the Soviets' withdrawal of support. With regards to China especially (and to Yugoslavia as well, although less significantly) it's a real shame that Mao could not accept Soviet leadership of the world socialist movement. These countries petty infighting reduced their potential to change the world and to see a socialist victory in the Cold War.


Oh and btw Soviet192491: Soviets did support Cuba's support role in Angola -they were the ones providing the transport capacity to ferry Cuban armed forces to the conflict. They also later provided aid, military instruction and equipment.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10768
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Jul 2008, 05:01
I was waiting for soviet78's response.


soviet78 wrote:
First off, the USSR did not want 'dominance' over the states of Eastern Europe. Their transformation was the result of the intensification of the Cold War.


That was one point I was thinking of. For most of the 20th century the world wasn't friendly to Communists (arguably the world was never friendly to Communists). It wasn't until after the Second World War that the Soviet Union was able to present a real opposition to the oppressors. In a sense the Communists not in the Soviet Union need the Soviet Union's help in the struggle.

The second point, which no one has touched on, was that the Soviet Union was the first country to go red, and stay red, in the ~70 years of Marxism existing. Every Communist in the world was looking at Russia and wondering how they could duplicate the Russia Revolution in their home country. The Soviets were "given" the role of leadership and it really wasn't until Mao (arguably) that Communists started looking at local conditions as opposed to "the Russian way."
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 09 Jul 2008, 05:21
Quote:
They actually considered Cuba a big headache especially under Khrushchev-Brezhnev


But it was Khrushchev who made the alliance with Castro in the first place. Also the two of them worked together to cause the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 09 Jul 2008, 19:24
Quote:
Oh and btw Soviet192491: Soviets did support Cuba's support role in Angola -they were the ones providing the transport capacity to ferry Cuban armed forces to the conflict. They also later provided aid, military instruction and equipment.

Economically yes, they paid for the war. But they did not approve of the war. Cuba acted on their own, it was the MPLA who came to Cuba for help.
Quote:
But it was Khrushchev who made the alliance with Castro in the first place. Also the two of them worked together to cause the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Khrushchev made an alliance with every country that had hostility with the U.S. ex. Nasser, Lumumba. There was no cause to the crisis. It was Fidel who insisted that Khrushchev give the Cubans nukes to protect Cuba in case of another U.S. invasion. Khrushchev was hesitant.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 09 Jul 2008, 21:20
I thought the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba because the US had missiles in Turkey. But yeah Castro and Guevera said that if the missiles were under Cuban controll then they'd fire them at the US, also Castro urged Khrushchev to sacrafice Cuba if needed.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10768
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Jul 2008, 22:01
Cuba relied ont the Soviet Union for a lot of aid since the USA started the blockade in 1960. Starting with the failure of Cuba to produce 10 million tons during the sugar harvest, Cuba slowly began to drift away from the "idealistic, volutaristic and utopian" ideas of Che Guevara towards the Soviet political and especially their economic model. That ended in 1986. The USSR hardly imposed their ideas of the Cubans.

thekraken wrote:
I thought the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba because the US had missiles in Turkey. But yeah Castro and Guevera said that if the missiles were under Cuban controll then they'd fire them at the US, also Castro urged Khrushchev to sacrafice Cuba if needed.


The Cubans wanted the missiles as a deterrent from the USA attacking them. The Soviets were eager to cooperate because of: 1. solidarity 2. strategic advantage of Cuba's location to the USA. Fidel expressed in his letter's to Khrushchev that if Cuba is attacked that the USSR must respond with a (nuclear) attack. Nuke's were only to be used as self-defense.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 10 Jul 2008, 00:03
Soviet dominance was a minimal factor, barring the tanks they used on two memorable occasions. Look at Gomulka, look at Honecker, Tito, Hoxha and Caecescu. Soviet78 is qwuite right in this respect - Gomulka as a point in hand, he was possibly one of the greatest figures of the C20th, without him seeking some form of rapproachment with the Western powers, by remaining independent and by proving himself to not be a threat to Europe, he averted a third world war. It did have a different economic model to other states, especially in the agronomical sector. The same did apply for Hungary and Czechoslovakia, despite the use of Soviet tanks. The Warsaw pact was little but a trade agreement.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Jul 2008, 23:30
The Warsaw Pact was an obligatory military alliance that gave Soviet High Command direct control over all alliance forces. It was also a way to denote the Soviet sphere of influence in geopolitical terms.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Jul 2008, 11:07
Quote:
Soviet dominance was a minimal factor, barring the tanks they used on two memorable occasions


Sadly, historians and propagandists capitalized on these two memorable occasions to conclude that there was a "Soviet empire".

I would say that the US-initiated Cold War forced the USSR into a position in which it had to "dominate" or at least play a hand in other socialist countries. Bipolar geopolitics demanded that the USSR jump to every place where socialism was being developed; the failure of socialism in said locality would reflect badly on the legitimacy of the USSR worldwide, as the USSR was obligated to help spread Marxism internationally.

In the end, the USSR dominated the Eastern Bloc as much as the US dominated Western Europe.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 14 Jul 2008, 08:23
No. Much more then that. You didn't see American tanks shutting down western governments for opposing the USA. You gotta hand it to the US, they only did that kind of sh*t to third world countries, meaning the first world (which is what counts) always saw the US as this benevolent protector.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jul 2008, 11:21
The American way of keeping "friendly" governments in line is very subtle on the whole. Most people are oblivious to it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4415
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 Jul 2008, 13:24
Quote:
You didn't see American tanks shutting down western governments for opposing the USA.


That's because they had more subtle means of maintaining influence, as Fellow Comrade said. When communists in France and Italy had a real chance at victory in the late 1940s (at which point they would likely detach from the Western sphere), the CIA and internal capitalist forces were fortunate enough to have a political process in these countries known as 'multiparty elections', which they were able to manipulate, and in the case of Italy outright fraudulently overturn, before it came to a communist victory. Sure it's not a legitimizing argument to say "they did it, so we can do it too", but the Cold War was a real period of ideological and class war, where one side's softness would result in their collapse. As WCM has said -why talk about international relations in terms like 'fair' and 'right'?
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 15 Jul 2008, 07:18
Point taken.
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Apr 2008, 01:32
Pioneer
Post 17 Jul 2008, 16:51
That's because they had more subtle means of maintaining influence, as Fellow Comrade said. When communists in France and Italy had a real chance at victory in the late 1940s (at which point they would likely detach from the Western sphere), the CIA and internal capitalist forces were fortunate enough to have a political process in these countries known as 'multiparty elections', which they were able to manipulate,

How did they manipulate it in France? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just not very knowledgable in this field.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.