soviet invasion of afghanistan

[yuriandropov]

are you for or against the 1979 soviet invasion of afghanistan?
do you see it as internationalist communist brotherhood and furthering world revolution, or as soviet aggresion and imperialism?

[yuriandropov]

and also, are you for or against the other main soviet military invasions of the 20th centrury?

DDR in '53, hungary in '56 and czechoslovakia in '68?

[PaulDavidHewson]

against of course,

It served no purpose but to expand CCCP's interests.

I don't believe additional comment is required though.

[yuriandropov]

are you a communist? if you are not, that would naturally be your answer. if you are, explain on your answer. how else would you propose expanding communism?
yes it served CCCP's interest, but it also expanded socialism into another part of the world. and it also proved that we were on a level (if not higher at that time) superpower status with USA. this would not be realised again.
even if you are a capitalist, explain why you don't agree with it.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Of course they were invasions and they highlighted the Soviet Union's imperialistic nature. Instead of spreading corporations arund the world for profit, they spread and put on others their ideology with brutal repression of human rights and dissent. Nobody wanted the USSR in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan except for the USSR themselves. International communism/brotherhood. Pfft what a joke

[yuriandropov]

a bit like saying nobody wanted USA in south vietnam. communists would have won the election there you know. and a bit like saying uraguay didn't want US interferance in there elections. a leftist would have won there, but the USA rigged the election to put a centerist in power. the only difference between soviet and USA imperialism is that at least we had the guts to actually invade. america would do it secretly to make them look like the good guys when in fact, they were doing no diffrent.
anyway, i didn't say USSR invaded for international communist brotherhood. that was not my opinion but the opinion of many on the left at the time. not mine.
i was still for the invasion though.

[Guest]

This is Capitalist Imperial

Yuri, I believe we can chalk up both the soviets in afghanistan and the US in vietnam as mutual mistakes. Both empires went into those wars fighting half-ass the whole time (and also having the rival empire fight them by-proxy with supplies, weapons, and advisors). Both countries tried to advance their respective political interests to no avail. Even if the US/USSR would have been successful in vietnam/afghanistan, would those victories really have helped each respective empire significantly? Probaby not. Neither afghanistan nor south vietnam would have been viable trade partners, and neither was rich in rare resources. Each country may have been marginally beneficial as a strategic ally, for placement of nukes, bases, etc, but in the grand scheme both the US and Soviets had strategic geographical options within those regions anyway. One interesting thing is that, for the most part, the US and USSR won their individual battles, both their weapons and battlefield prowess were effective. It is just that the battlefiled victories were in areas and over objectives that did not matter much overall. Both the US and Soviet governments had their forces fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. Had the US and USSR let their respective militaries go "all out", I think maybe the outcomes of those wars would have been much different. Another point of interest, though, is that I think the soviet's loss in afghanistan was more devastating to the USSR than the US loss in vietnam was to the USA. The US lost 50k soldiers (compared to millions of vietnamese dead), and a little pride, but did not suffer significant economic, industrial, military hardware, or even real political losses. I think the soviet loss in afghanistan and eventual withdrawl was one of the early and major factors that lead to the eventual fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

[komsomol]

I don't condemn them having done it, but they didn't do it for the right reasons, i read a book highlighting the Soviet agricultural needs for "virgin lands", that says it all.

[Moskitto]

He he, Hungarian Uprising was funny. A British communist newspaper said.

"The Soviet forces are assisting the Hungarian people in their struggle against western imperialism and aggression."

Yes and this would be why the Hungarians were throwing petrol bombs at the Soviet tanks. Nagy was a hero, it's a shame Tito didn't try and help him escape.

[Guest]

BY THE WAY, THIS IS CAPITALIST IMPERIAL, I KEEP LOGGING ON, AND THIS COMPUTER IS WELCOMING ME AS "CAPITALIST IMPERIAL", BUT WHEN I RETURN FROM THE LOGON SCREEN TO THIS FORUM, IT RETURNS ME TO GUEST STATUS!!! IS THIS A CRUEL COMMIE TRICK? PLEASE, A MOMENT OF AMNESTY AND HELP!!! AM I MISSING SOMETHING???

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i support it execpt i hate it when my communist brothers died...its all american fault thats why there getting bombed by the saem people they supported to go against the motherland..

[yuriandropov]

CI, the soviet loss in afghanistan was DEFINATLY more humiliating than vietnam. USA were fighting against a highly skilled army in the NVA aswell as well trained gurillas in the viet cong. USSR was fighting a few angry muslims. yes they were well trained and supplied by CIA, but they were no match for the red army. the loss was difficult to take.
the loss of afghanistan was very hard for me to take too because at the time i knew it was the begining of the end for the soviet empire. as soon as gorbachev pulled the forces out i knew the people of eastern europe wouldn't stay quiet for long. if the berlin wall was the end of the soviet empire, the loss in afghanistan was the beggining of the end.
IMO 1979 was the high point for the USSR. i believe we had knocked USA from number 1 superpower. in all previous USSR-USA confrontations, we had always lost face (berlin tank square off, cuban missile crisis etc). this always showed USA was number 1. but in 1979, we were so powerful as to go ahead and invade another country. not to keep power, but to take power. this had never been done in the cold war. but by 1988, USSR was not only second to USA again but it was by a long way. loss of afghanistan, loss of eastern europe, fall of berlin wall and eventually fall of USSR. out of all these things, the fall of USSR is not what angers me the most, but the fall of eastern europe. if we had treated the people better, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much. and there is no chance of reconcilliation. the USSR may come back, but the power it had in eastern europe is gone. USSR will never regain the superpower status it had because of the way situations like afghanistan and eastern europe were treated.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i would like to see the ussr come back.this time usa is left and its targeted by millions and it well fall...theres alot of sleepers here in usa so it would destroy the economy then this country well die hahahaha i cant wait.

[Guest]

Very thoughtful, yuri.

SS, you don't know what you're talking about

[Maaja]

I don't support it. I don't support any kind of viloent military invasions. There couldn't be a reason to do that. A country can have no right to attack another, maybe only if the majority of the local people is asking for help. And it wasn't that case in Afghanistan etc.

[guerrillaradio]

Yuri - are you condoning the ruthless slaughter of thousands of Hungarians for nothing but to serve the USSR's interests??

[yuriandropov]

guerillaradio, no, thats my point. if we had treated eastern europe better, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much and wouldn't of needed to revolt.obviously, we had to keep communsim there but we didn't learn from our mistakes. people revolted in eastern europe because what they had wasn't communism. we should of learned that in '56. but brezhnev was too much of an idiot. he used proseprous socialist countries like hungary and czechoslovakia to prop up the soviet economy in the 70's.
we should of invaded hungary, but if the soviet leadership learned anything at all, that would of been the last soviet invasion to prop up a communist government. prague spring, afgahnistan and the revolt in the baltic states should never of happened.

[RedSovietCCCP]

I was for the Soviet invasion of afgahnistan. I agree with you a 100% on the points you are making yuri!!!!! Another hardline Communists just like me!

[Capitalist Imperial]

The CIA and US advisors assisted in the Soviets' defeat in afghanistn, just revenge for your helping the vietnamese.

[Ernest Everhard]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:16 am on May 29, 2002
The CIA and US advisors assisted in the Soviets' defeat in afghanistn, just revenge for your helping the vietnamese.

CI thats a pretty silly comment. It wasn't revenge, just a natural reaction by one hegemonical superpower against the moves of another hegemonical superpower.

I'd just like to point something out, Yuri, more than a communist I think you're a russian nationalist. You like communism not because you're versed in Marx and agree with the aims and methods he put forth, but because you appreciate the fact that russian imperialism and dominance over eastern europe and the Soviet Union was legitimized by communism. Those polls you pulled out about how people in russia want the soviet union back are true, and I believe sincerely that you want the CCCP back, not because you're a communist, but because like the people in the polls, youre a proud russian patriot. You don't like the fact that your once powerful nation is enfeebled on the global level. What you have to realize YURI is that it wasn't the CCCP that failed communism, it wasn't Gorbachev that sold you out, rather it was communism that failed the CCCP, eastern europe and RUSSIA.

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 10:29 pm on May 29, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:16 am on May 29, 2002
T
CI thats a pretty silly comment. It wasn't revenge, just a natural reaction by one hegemonical superpower against the moves of another hegemonical superpower.

Yes, you're right, Earnest, my comment was meant to come across as fasicious at best. I have a more analytical post on this subject earlier in this thread (i'm posted as "guest" there, don't know why, i register on that computer, and it recognizes me as CI, but when i return to the forum i'm "guest" again)