Ways to Overcome Western Aggression

[Jason]

Let's assume that the US had been friendly toward Cuba (and the eastern bloc)? Would that have made a difference there? Of course, when I say friendly, I mean west that would have totally accepted the eastern bloc's system, and did not seek to exploit them.

Also, since the west was unfriendly, was there anyway other ways the soviet bloc could have overcome the many problems posed by this obstacle?

[Blake's Baby]

'friendly'?

States are as 'friendly' as they need to be to pursue their objectives (the West was pretty 'friendly' to the Yugoslav state when it broke with Moscow, and with Romania when it began to take an anti-Moscow line, and worked very hard to get China on-side after the Sino-Soviet Split). As for Cuba, the US (extremely foolishly in my estimation, from a geo-political point of view) decided that the Castro regime could go dance to Moscow's tune even though Cuba was making diplomatic overtures to the US throughout 1960 (probably, because some very right-wing elements in the US would rather support support a Batista-restoration movement than accept nationalisation of the Bacardi distillery).

[PigmerikanMao]

Well considering how most of the conflagrations and tensions during the Cold War were a build up or reaction to western hostilities, if the west was truly "friendly" to emerging socialist states, there may not have been a Cold War at all.

Korea and Vietnam:
On a more massive scale, Korea and Vietnam's attempts at independence and subsequently unification, were stemmed considerably through capitalist aggression by both the US and European powers. If the west hadn't prevented democratic elections in Korea and Vietnam, or divided them to hold separate rigged elections to prevent anti-business candidates from gaining power, there wouldn't have been a Korean or Vietnamese war. In fact insomuch as the majority of the base for the Marxist movements in Vietnam and Korea were more nationalist than communist, it very well could have been that the KWP and CPV would not have held power for as long as they have in the DPRK and SRV respectively.

US Foreign Policy:
This does not stop with major conflicts the Cold War is associated with, either. Countless coups and government overthrows on the part of military sponsored by the United States brought down democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran and sponsored dictators in their place as well as in other locations (ROV, ROK, Greece, Zaire, Batista's Cuba and others are among notable examples). This only served to reinforce the Marxist view that capitalism/imperialism could not survive on democracy due to the subjugation of the masses (the third world mostly) for the benefit of the few (Western Imperialists). This obviously sent the right message to Moscow that diplomacy with the US could not serve mutual interests, nor be mutually beneficial because the entirety of the focus of US Foreign Policy during this period was aimed at ending the international socialist movement.

The main problems within the Eastern Bloc was their divided nature. As new socialist states began to emerge, there were few efforts to actually economically link these states or build up significant cooperative efforts. Different structures of power ultimately led to nationalist campaigns against one another that imperialists were able to exploit. I consider sometimes how different history might have been if instead of dividing communist gains throughout the world into state capitalist nation states, they were incorporated into a true union of socialist republics.

[Jason]

On a more massive scale, Korea and Vietnam's attempts at independence and subsequently unification, were stemmed considerably through capitalist aggression by both the US and European powers. If the west hadn't prevented democratic elections in Korea and Vietnam, or divided them to hold separate rigged elections to prevent anti-business candidates from gaining power, there wouldn't have been a Korean or Vietnamese war. In fact insomuch as the majority of the base for the Marxist movements in Vietnam and Korea were more nationalist than communist, it very well could have been that the KWP and CPV would not have held power for as long as they have in the DPRK and SRV respectively.

Some have argued they wanted to use Korea (but were forced to settle with South Korea) as a base against China. This base was to be a wall protecting Japan from a Communist attack.

You could say that the success of the North Korean regime is due to it's foundation in the anti-Japanese struggle. On the other hand, the eastern european nations mostly had communism imposed on them by the Soviets. There was no nationalist element.



This does not stop with major conflicts the Cold War is associated with, either. Countless coups and government overthrows on the part of military sponsored by the United States brought down democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran and sponsored dictators in their place as well as in other locations (ROV, ROK, Greece, Zaire, Batista's Cuba and others are among notable examples). This only served to reinforce the Marxist view that capitalism/imperialism could not survive on democracy due to the subjugation of the masses (the third world mostly) for the benefit of the few (Western Imperialists).


So the US claims to fight for freedom, but actually, only freedom for a business elite and bought off populations (US, Japan, Western Europe).