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

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

POST REPLY

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

Yes
26
59%
No
16
36%
Other
2
5%
 
Total votes : 44
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
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.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
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?
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 17:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
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.
I'm deputy military commander of Cuba.
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
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.
"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: 91
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2011, 09:04
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:03
I think is has some problems but generally yes.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
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?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 8
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2013, 11:40
Ideology: Other
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
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.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
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.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.