Was Brezhnev a racist?

[Blanquist]

He told Nixon that nuclear war between the US and USSR should be avoided because then the world would be run by blacks and yellows.

Is this enough to claim he was a racist?

[Ostrinski]

Well shit, if it doesn't then I don't know what to say.

[Rafiq]

I'm skeptical... Did he really say that?

[NewLeft]

Brezhnev was not a fan of China, that's for sure. He wanted to stop China from getting more nuclear weapons and becoming an actual threat. Apparently he thought of the Chinese as "flesh-eaters." But this is from Kissinger.

[Red Commissar]

I'm skeptical... Did he really say that?

Only thing I can find to that effect is from a transcript in an interview between then President Nixon and former aide Frank Gannon in 1983 reflecting back on parts of his presidency. During one of the questions about his meeting with Brezhnev in Crimea over an anti-ballistic weapons treaty.

During that interview he drops the line OP is referring to:

http://www.libs.uga.edu/media/collections/nixon/nixonday5.html


Day 5, Tape 1
00:31:42
[Frank Gannon]

During your time in--in the Crimea, you had a long private conversation with him in his cabana by--by his pool there in which you discussed China. Had he changed his position?

Day 5, Tape 1
00:31:53
[Richard Nixon]

Attitudes had very much changed. Very interesting to analyze the Soviet on China. 1972, right after we had been to China, he was very careful not to raise it particularly, just in passing. He didn't want to show any concern about it, although I knew that he was deeply concerned about it. I think one of the reasons they were so anxious to have a summit is that we had one with China. And the second point is that, in 1973, China was a major subject of concern. That was when he told me out in San Clemente that he felt the Chinese would be a serious nuc--nuclear threat in ten years, which I did not believe and still do not believe, and, of course, ten years have passed, and it hasn't happened.

Day 5, Tape 1
00:32:37
[Frank Gannon]

Do you think he really believed it, or was he just trying to dramatize the problem?

Day 5, Tape 1
00:32:41
[Richard Nixon]

I don't know. I th--I think he was concerned, however. I think he was--I'm not sure that he believed that. As a matter of fact, he's too intelligent to look at the Chinese economy and think that it could produce that much that soon. But I think what happened was that he was trying to develop a closer relationship with us vis-à-vis the Chinese and, making the point, he was overstating. But in 1974 it was interesting to note that he spoke very disparing-jingly [sic]--disparagingly about the Chinese. He said that th--they were a very backward people, that seventy-five percent of them were illiterate, that eighty-five percent of them lived in agriculture am--and were not in industrial production. and that it would be at least fifteen years or so before they developed a significant nuclear capability. And then he made a very interesting point, though, in following that up. He said, "Really, the only two nations in the world that really matter are the Soviet Union and the United States." He said, "Look at Europe. I mean, Europe is divided and it doesn't have the power. But we matter. We can change the world." And that is when he made a proposal which we could not accept--that we would set up a joint U.S.-Soviet agreement, an agreement--a condominium sort of effect, where either one would come to the defense of the other in the event it was attacked. Well, of course, that would have driven the Chinese up the wall. It would have driven the Europeans up the wall. It simply couldn't be agreed to on--on that kind of a basis. But I th--I think that in--when he made that point, he also expressed his views about nuclear war generally. And I thought it was very interesting when he said, "Look. If there is a nuclear war, it will destroy the white races. All that will be left will be the blacks and the yellows." And I think that was his a--his conviction. And, incidentally, he is quite right. I don't mean by that that there won't be some white people left, maybe in Latin America. But in the event of war, assuming that it is nuclear, the nuclear power is in the Soviet Union, it's in the United States, it's in Western Europe, and a lot would be left the other way. So I think he was simply making that point quite vividly.

Again though this is from Nixon's own recollections, not from another source that was covering those private talks between the two leaders or Brezhnev himself.

[Blake's Baby]

He doesn't have to be a racist. He might just be calculating Nixon's a racist (and therefore wouldn't go to war if China and... I dunno, Zaire were going to 'win').

A bit like when Hitler was worried that in a war between the Nazis and Stalinist Russia, the real winner might be Trotsky.

[Rafiq]

A bit like when Hitler was worried that in a war between the Nazis and Stalinist Russia, the real winner might be Trotsky.

When was this?

[Blanquist]

He doesn't have to be a racist. He might just be calculating Nixon's a racist (and therefore wouldn't go to war if China and... I dunno, Zaire were going to 'win').

A bit like when Hitler was worried that in a war between the Nazis and Stalinist Russia, the real winner might be Trotsky.

Very good point indeed.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I don't think he is a rascist for saying that (if he did)
Sounds more like a concern.

[tachosomoza]

I don't think he is a rascist for saying that (if he did)
Sounds more like a concern.

If he said that, he was a racialist, which is abominable. It means he had a fear of those that he might have considered "inferior". That ain't cool. Russia has always been a racist country, though, so I'm not surprised.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yeah probably

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think he is a rascist for saying that (if he did)
Sounds more like a concern.

hahah

yeah its not racist to be concerned about blacks running the world just a valid every day concern that all reasonable people have had

[NorwegianCommunist]

I would be concerned if the entire population of USA and former USSR was wiped out.
It's wrong to call someone a rascist by refering to one statement or even a few, because maybe it came out wrong or people misunderstood it?

[Franz Fanonipants]

check out this fucking selective reading

[Misanthrope]

I would be concerned if the entire population of USA and former USSR was wiped out.
It's wrong to call someone a rascist by refering to one statement or even a few, because maybe it came out wrong or people misunderstood it?

No it's not. That's a racist statement. One who makes racist statements is a racist. I don't see how it is wrong to state a fact. Second, your signature is incredibly fallacious. Patriotism is nationalism. Any devotion to race or nation is reactionary and antithetical to communism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I would be concerned if the entire population of USA and former USSR was wiped out.
It's wrong to call someone a rascist by refering to one statement or even a few, because maybe it came out wrong or people misunderstood it?

he'n not just concerned that the population of USSR and the US would be wiped out, he's explicitly saying he's afraid the blacks and yellows would take over the world if that happens. There's not so much to misunderstand about that.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Patriotism is nationalism.

although I agree with you, this exact sentence isn't true. In the US, for example, people are patriotic when they say US is the best country/state in the world (bad example, I know), however there are several nations within the US.

[Franz Fanonipants]

holy shit i hadn't even read norwegian communist's signature basically that shit and his statements here make me v. curious

[Franz Fanonipants]

although I agree with you, this exact sentence isn't true. In the US, for example, people are patriotic when they say US is the best country/state in the world (bad example, I know), however there are several nations within the US.

i mean i am all for aztlan

[NorwegianCommunist]

No it's not. That's a racist statement. One who makes racist statements is a racist. I don't see how it is wrong to state a fact. Second, your signature is incredibly fallacious. Patriotism is nationalism. Any devotion to race or nation is reactionary and antithetical to communism.

It is still wrong to label a person as a rascist after ONE FUCKING statement.
Maybe Brezhnev said that "rascist" quote, but he is still not a rascist.
Im sure a person can say one racist thing whitout having hatred towards other races constantly.

[tachosomoza]

It is still wrong to label a person as a rascist after ONE FUCKING statement.
Maybe Brezhnev said that "rascist" quote, but he is still not a rascist.
Im sure a person can say one racist thing whitout having hatred towards other races constantly.

By expressing fear of "blacks and yellows running the world", he obviously thought less of them than he did "whites". That's racism. The only way I see you defending this statement and this man is if you agree with it, which warrants restriction.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I like communism better than nationalism.
But if someone asks me if I love Norway, then I will say yes, because I think it's a pretty good country to live in right now.
Although I would not be sad if communism eventually will come, of course that would be better.

Also; I did not write my own signature, it's written by Charles De Gaulle (in case you were wondering)

[Zukunftsmusik]

Also; I did not write my own signature, it's written by Charles De Gaulle (in case you were wondering)

you know he's a conservative, right?

[NorwegianCommunist]

By expressing fear of "blacks and yellows running the world", he obviously thought less of them than he did "whites". That's racism. The only way I see you defending this statement and this man is if you agree with it, which warrants restriction.


Eveybody in this forum has said something racist before.
This forum would not be able to function without any members.
But all I am saying is that a person is not racist after saying one racist thing.

One racist statement can be ment as a joke, but one does still not believe that the white race is superior.

[marl]

Quoting Gaulle? Are you kidding me?

[tachosomoza]

Eveybody in this forum has said something racist before.
This forum would not be able to function without any members.
But all I am saying is that a person is not racist after saying one racist thing.

One racist statement can be ment as a joke, but one does still not believe that the white race is superior.

The fact that you believe in the concept of race says a lot.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I don't think the white race is superior, I am just saying that someone ISN'T a racist after one statement.

@Marl; Yes I am quoting Gaulle. Not because I like him or agree with him, but because that quote puts nationalism in a worse view then patriotism.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

He told Nixon that nuclear war between the US and USSR should be avoided because then the world would be run by blacks and yellows.

Is this enough to claim he was a racist?

I don't think that's something even Brezhnev would have said really. If he did then yes, that's incredibly racist. That's not a normal offhand remark or something, that's pretty much white supremacism.


blacks and yellows

Kind of an unusual way to refer to ethnically African and Asian people if you're not a major racist. (unless of course he was making a reference to a Wiz Khalifa song 40 years before it came out.)

[NorwegianCommunist]

Agree with you, it's a racist statement, but it doesn't nessecerialy mean that Brezhnev is a racist.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Brezhnev was a staunch Russian nationalist whose administration did a lot to destroy the concept of the Soviet Union as a multicultural society. On top of this he was also an imperialist in foreign policy, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was a racist.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Perhaps the original Nazbol.

[Omsk]

Perhaps the original Nazbol


The original National-Bolsheviks were 'shaped' in WWI Germany,and revolutionary Russia,much much before Brezhnev.

Although he did influence the later more Russian oriented 'communists' politicians in the CCCP. (Which usually became nationalist when the Union fell.)

[Leo]

A bit like when Hitler was worried that in a war between the Nazis and Stalinist Russia, the real winner might be Trotsky.

When was this?

From the article 1940: Assassination of Trotsky (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm)

“Robert Coulondre [1885-1959, French ambassador to Moscow, then to Berlin], French ambassador to the Third Reich, gives a striking testimony in the description of his last meeting with Hitler, just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just concluded; and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the French ambassador appealed to his ‘reason’ and spoke of the social turmoil and the revolutions that might follow a long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent governments. ‘You are thinking of yourself as a victor...’, the ambassador said, ‘but have you given thought to another possibility - that the victor might be Trotsky?’ At this Hitler jumped up (as if he ‘had been hit in the pit of the stomach’) and screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky’s victory, was one more reason why France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich [ The Prophet Outcast, Isaac Deutscher, Oxford Paperbacks, p515.]”


He doesn't have to be a racist. He might just be calculating Nixon's a racist

If so, he wouldn't be far from the truth, since he comments "And I think that was his conviction. And, incidentally, he is quite right."

I imagine he really believed in it though, I see no reason why he wouldn't. The same with Nixon. Neither of them could say anything as such in public, although they were, after all, the leaders of the two leading imperialist powers of the world who both happened to be white, in countries where non-Whites had a long history of being subjected to repression. It is all too natural for such men to believe in such things.

[roy]

So, how many racist statements does a person have to make before they have white pride bona fides?

[Misanthrope]

although I agree with you, this exact sentence isn't true. In the US, for example, people are patriotic when they say US is the best country/state in the world (bad example, I know), however there are several nations within the US.

Nope

The United States is made up of 50 states under one federal government. There may be rivalry between states especially in the South with sports and the like but they all can agree with their blind love of the country. Every student in these states, excluding college, pledge allegiance to the American flag daily. Patriotism is mild nationalism. Be it just semantics, patriotism still should be viewed for what it is, reactionary.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Nope

The United States is made up of 50 states under one federal government. There may be rivalry between states especially in the South with sports and the like but they all can agree with their blind love of the country. Every student in these states, excluding college, pledge allegiance to the American flag daily. Patriotism is mild nationalism. Be it just semantics, patriotism still should be viewed for what it is, reactionary.
Not to speak for him, but I think Haust was referring to the idea of a "black nation" or "Latino nation" within the United States. I would disagree with this analysis and I believe black nationalism is just as damaging and reactionary as white nationalism.

Though, the fact that there are multiple nations within the US is true. Even us on the left are all too quick to forget the many sovereign Indian nations which exist under conditions of extreme oppression at the hands of US hegemony. These nations have been fighting a losing battle for national liberation for over 100 years. Meanwhile, the notion of US "patriotism" co-opts a constructed image of the exotic "Native American" as a fundamental part of US culture, making it a part of the very hegemony Indian peoples are subjected too. This serves to further dilute their Lakota, Cherokee, etc cultures, making it harder to resist this constructed identity which serves to liquidate their national identities.

[A Marxist Historian]

When was this?

An interview with a journalist in the late '30s, 1939 I think. Trotsky wrote an article about it which you can find in his collected works, the 1939-40 volume I think.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

And I think that was his conviction. And, incidentally, he is quite right..."[/I]

I imagine he really believed in it though, I see no reason why he wouldn't. The same with Nixon. Neither of them could say anything as such in public, although they were, after all, the leaders of the two leading imperialist powers of the world who both happened to be white, in countries where non-Whites had a long history of being subjected to repression. It is all too natural for such men to believe in such things.

As described, Brezhnev was trying to get Nixon to sign on to his nuclear scheme by playing on Nixon's own racism. That "law 'n order" Tricky Dick was a white racist was so well known at the time that Brezhnev was surely quite well aware of it.

As the Watergate tapes show, Nixon was not only a white racist, but an anti-Semite too, which often put Kissinger in a difficult position in private conversations.

Does that prove Brezhnev was a racist? Not necessarily. It does prove that he was a cynical bastard with no principles, just as bad as being a racist in my book.

Soviet public policy was highly anti-racist, Patrice Lumumba University and all that, but that doesn't mean that Brezhnev himself was anti-racist personally. The hypocrisy and general phoniness of Brezhnev style "socialism" is notorious.

Soviet bureaucrats in Brezhnev's time were notorious for corruption, male chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Why not white racism too?

-M.H.-

[Zukunftsmusik]

Nope

The United States is made up of 50 states under one federal government. There may be rivalry between states especially in the South with sports and the like but they all can agree with their blind love of the country. Every student in these states, excluding college, pledge allegiance to the American flag daily. Patriotism is mild nationalism. Be it just semantics, patriotism still should be viewed for what it is, reactionary.

state is not the same as nation. that is the point. They pledge alliance to the flag -- the symbol which unites the US as a state --, in spite their national background. That's patritotism. If they, however, were to pledge alliance to their souix flag (or any other national symbol) or whatever, that's nationalism.

And I don't support either nationalism nor patriotism, I'm just pointing out that there's a difference.

[moulinrouge]

The USSR was a racist state it had segregation(migration bans), propaganda about how great the russian people are, racist propaganda aimed at americans and the culture of the USSR also was racist and social conservative with no efforts from the leadership to change this.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

He told Nixon that nuclear war between the US and USSR should be avoided because then the world would be run by blacks and yellows.

Is this enough to claim he was a racist?

Cite your sources, please and thanks.

[Blake's Baby]

It's here, as supplied by Red Commissar, who quoted (and linked to) Nixon's memoirs:



Only thing I can find to that effect is from a transcript in an interview between then President Nixon and former aide Frank Gannon in 1983 reflecting back on parts of his presidency. During one of the questions about his meeting with Brezhnev in Crimea over an anti-ballistic weapons treaty.

During that interview he drops the line OP is referring to:

http://www.libs.uga.edu/media/collections/nixon/nixonday5.html

Day 5, Tape 1
00:31:42
[Frank Gannon]

During your time in--in the Crimea, you had a long private conversation with him in his cabana by--by his pool there in which you discussed China. Had he changed his position?

Day 5, Tape 1
00:31:53
[Richard Nixon]

Attitudes had very much changed. Very interesting to analyze the Soviet on China. 1972, right after we had been to China, he was very careful not to raise it particularly, just in passing. He didn't want to show any concern about it, although I knew that he was deeply concerned about it. I think one of the reasons they were so anxious to have a summit is that we had one with China. And the second point is that, in 1973, China was a major subject of concern. That was when he told me out in San Clemente that he felt the Chinese would be a serious nuc--nuclear threat in ten years, which I did not believe and still do not believe, and, of course, ten years have passed, and it hasn't happened.

Day 5, Tape 1
00:32:37
[Frank Gannon]

Do you think he really believed it, or was he just trying to dramatize the problem?

Day 5, Tape 1
00:32:41
[Richard Nixon]

I don't know. I th--I think he was concerned, however. I think he was--I'm not sure that he believed that. As a matter of fact, he's too intelligent to look at the Chinese economy and think that it could produce that much that soon. But I think what happened was that he was trying to develop a closer relationship with us vis-à-vis the Chinese and, making the point, he was overstating. But in 1974 it was interesting to note that he spoke very disparing-jingly [sic]--disparagingly about the Chinese. He said that th--they were a very backward people, that seventy-five percent of them were illiterate, that eighty-five percent of them lived in agriculture am--and were not in industrial production. and that it would be at least fifteen years or so before they developed a significant nuclear capability. And then he made a very interesting point, though, in following that up. He said, "Really, the only two nations in the world that really matter are the Soviet Union and the United States." He said, "Look at Europe. I mean, Europe is divided and it doesn't have the power. But we matter. We can change the world." And that is when he made a proposal which we could not accept--that we would set up a joint U.S.-Soviet agreement, an agreement--a condominium sort of effect, where either one would come to the defense of the other in the event it was attacked. Well, of course, that would have driven the Chinese up the wall. It would have driven the Europeans up the wall. It simply couldn't be agreed to on--on that kind of a basis. But I th--I think that in--when he made that point, he also expressed his views about nuclear war generally. And I thought it was very interesting when he said, "Look. If there is a nuclear war, it will destroy the white races. All that will be left will be the blacks and the yellows." And I think that was his a--his conviction. And, incidentally, he is quite right. I don't mean by that that there won't be some white people left, maybe in Latin America. But in the event of war, assuming that it is nuclear, the nuclear power is in the Soviet Union, it's in the United States, it's in Western Europe, and a lot would be left the other way. So I think he was simply making that point quite vividly.



Again though this is from Nixon's own recollections, not from another source that was covering those private talks between the two leaders or Brezhnev himself.

[Ocean Seal]

He told Nixon that nuclear war between the US and USSR should be avoided because then the world would be run by blacks and yellows.

Is this enough to claim he was a racist?
Yeah probably, I would say so for most people, but Brezhnev was also kind of a dumbass, and yeah I think that such an argument would appeal to Nixon. But its very possible that Brezhnev was also a racist.

[A Marxist Historian]

The USSR was a racist state it had segregation(migration bans), propaganda about how great the russian people are, racist propaganda aimed at americans and the culture of the USSR also was racist and social conservative with no efforts from the leadership to change this.

The USSR was the very opposite of a racist state. In fact, there were laws under which anyone making racist propaganda went to jail.

During the cold War, argument #1 the USSR used vs. the USA was American racism. That's not "racist propaganda," that was anti-racist propaganda, and 100% accurate too. And the Soviets put money and guns where their mouth was, funding the ANC in South Africa, funding Patrice Lumumba University for African students, arming the MPLA in Angola to drive out the South African army, etc. etc.

There was absolutely no racial segregation in the USSR, ever. You did have, at times, measures making it difficult for peasants to move to the cities, residency permits etc., but this was absolutely non-racial, as the great majority of Soviet peasants were Russian.

You had quite a bit of Russian nationalism, but as others have pointed out, nationalism and racism are not the same things. And Russians had no legal privileges over other ethnic groups.

In fact, it was the opposite, you had affirmative action for minority nationalities, and not just in college admissions, and lots of rubles invested in building up the economies of minority nationality areas to bring them up to the Russian level.

Now, were there popular racist attitudes? Not in the early years of the USSR, but they did grow under Stalin, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, white racism has become intense in post-Soviet lands, closely associated with anti-communism and pro-capitalist ideas.

But this is not the fault of the USSR, it is the fault of Stalin and his bureaucrats, many of whom probably did have racist notions in private--though the quote from Brezhnev doesn't prove that, just proves what a cynical bastard he was.

-M.H.-

[tachosomoza]

Russia and Eastern Europe has always been socially backward. The Soviet Union didn't tolerate racism and punished it harshly, but the latent attitudes never went away, and capitalism brought it all down. Sure, it was anti racist in character and spirit, but the masses weren't necessarily the most open minded folk. For example, the peasants in Ukraine spat on black athletes who came for the 1980 Olympics.

[Armchair War Criminal]

The history of the USSR and race is really really complicated (as you'd expect.) Certainly the overall policy thrust, domestically and internationally, was antiracist, but that doesn't mean that Soviet ethnic management didn't often do some pretty hideous shit.

(Obviously this is totally orthogonal to questions of Brezhnev's personal racism.)

[A Marxist Historian]

Russia and Eastern Europe has always been socially backward. The Soviet Union didn't tolerate racism and punished it harshly, but the latent attitudes never went away, and capitalism brought it all down. Sure, it was anti racist in character and spirit, but the masses weren't necessarily the most open minded folk. For example, the peasants in Ukraine spat on black athletes who came for the 1980 Olympics.

Shouldn't really blame that on the masses, but on the regime. In the 1930s, visiting American blacks like Paul Robeson were pretty much popular idols. Fifty years of Stalinism later...

Of course, Ukrainian peasants were always a problem, even in Lenin and Trotsky's days. Kulakland...

-M.H.-

[JAM]

Shouldn't really blame that on the masses, but on the regime. In the 1930s, visiting American blacks like Paul Robeson were pretty much popular idols. Fifty years of Stalinism later...

And you know why "American blacks like Paul Robeson" were pretty much popular idols in USSR? Because the regime promoted that. In fact, I have here a soviet video produced during Stalin's era where the American racism is denounced and condemned: youtube .com/watch?v=FQ0v2QCWMzE

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 was the first in the world to forbid and punish the racial discrimination.

[A Marxist Historian]

And you know why "American blacks like Paul Robeson" were pretty much popular idols in USSR? Because the regime promoted that. In fact, I have here a soviet video produced during Stalin's era where the American racism is denounced and condemned: youtube .com/watch?v=FQ0v2QCWMzE

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 was the first in the world to forbid and punish the racial discrimination.

And when did things start to go sour? When Khrushchev took over? No.

It was in Stalin's last years that the internationalism of Lenin's Bolshevism was replaced by Russian nationalism and Tsar worship.

Thus you had the explosion of anti-Semitism, the campaigns against "rootless cosmopolitanism," the "doctors plot," the trial and execution of Jewish Soviet writers.

Which Paul Robeson, by the way, in every other way a loyal Stalinist, did protest against.

Fast forward to the 1980s, you get Ukrainians hissing black athletes at the Moscow Olympics. But it was Stalin who started the ball rolling downhill.

A logical consequence, over time, of the Stalinist conception of "socialism in one country."

-M.H.-

[JAM]

And when did things start to go sour? When Khrushchev took over? No.

It was in Stalin's last years that the internationalism of Lenin's Bolshevism was replaced by Russian nationalism and Tsar worship.

Russian nationalism was used by Stalin in order to motivate its people against the Nazi invasor. It was an extraordinary measure taken in a extraordinary time and was dropped rightly after the war. Nonetheless, Lenin was never forgotten by Stalin in his speeches.

Never existed such thing as czar worship.



Thus you had the explosion of anti-Semitism, the campaigns against "rootless cosmopolitanism," the "doctors plot," the trial and execution of Jewish Soviet writers.

This had nothing to do with racism but rather the jewish influence that Stalin feared to be a threat to his ruling. One of the Stalin closest friends and associates was Jew (Lazar Kaganovich), is rumored that Stalin had an affair with Kaganovitch sister, Rosa Kaganovich, with whom he had a close relationship and Stalin's children married Jews. If this was a matter of racism I really doubt that any of these facts would ever take place.




Fast forward to the 1980s, you get Ukrainians hissing black athletes at the Moscow Olympics. But it was Stalin who started the ball rolling downhill.

A logical consequence, over time, of the Stalinist conception of "socialism in one country."

-M.H.-

I don't know how you can fit "Socialism in one country" in this argue. This doctrine is about the possibility of building socialism in a single country and has nothing to do with the matter that we are dealing here. One of the most commonly mistakes about this issue is to think that "Socialism in one country" meant a nationalist turn of the Russian revolution. It didn't at all.

Socialism in one country was a political thesis elaborated by Bukharin and adopted as an official state policy by Stalin in 1926. However, this doctrine was meant to be temporary in order to avoid the collapse of the USSR and not permanent. We need to keep in mind that this policy was undertaken during the period post-civil war when the USSR was in no political and economic conditions to support revolutions abroad and after the failure of the socialist revolution in Germany. The soviet economy was on the verge of collapse. Stalin was always an internationalist and he did support revolutions outside USSR. Once he got the conditions to do it he did it, as he did in the period post-World War II. Stalin never abandoned internationalism.