could the warsaw pact have won the cold war?

[Dr Mindbender]

Inspired by the ''could the axis have...'' thread.

Could the USSR have got a better deal from the outcome of the cuban missile crisis? Is there anyway that the fall of the Berlin wall have happened on the USSR's terms?

If the historical shoe was on the other foot, what would be the repercussion of soviet victory? Could genuine communism have been realised when operated on a pan global level?

Opinions?

[Ismail]

The Warsaw Pact was an imperialist alliance which only existed to have each state in it be a puppet to the Soviets. And no, it wouldn't of won the Cold War. It was purely defensive. COMECON and such handled actual matters such as trade, etc.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Warsaw Pact was an imperialist alliance which only existed to have each state in it be a puppet to the Soviets. And no, it wouldn't of won the Cold War. It was purely defensive. COMECON and such handled actual matters such as trade, etc.

NATO's protractors would probably have made the same argument that it was also 'defensive' yet clearly, it had and realised imperialist ambitions of its own.

I still believe the cold war was a political tug of war which could have gone either way.

[PigmerikanMao]

The Warsaw Pact and USSR, by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, was state-capitalist and could no longer be considered on the socialist road. Even if the Warsaw Pact "won," it would be a victory for Russian Imperialism, not communism.
~PMao :laugh:

[ComradeOm]

As for the original question, no side could have won the Cold War through military means. Any war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have been nuclear


The Warsaw Pact was an imperialist alliance which only existed to have each state in it be a puppet to the Soviets. And no, it wouldn't of won the Cold War. It was purely defensiveSo which was it - a purely defensive arrangement or an imperialist alliance?

[PigmerikanMao]

So which was it - a purely defensive arrangement or an imperialist alliance?

A defensive arrangement for imperialist minded states. An axis of evil, if you will. :laugh:

[Dr Mindbender]

The Warsaw Pact and USSR, by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, was state-capitalist and could no longer be considered on the socialist road. Even if the Warsaw Pact "won," it would be a victory for Russian Imperialism, not communism.
~PMao :laugh:

i think part of my point was, was the soviet union's imperialist tendencies a symptom of it being co-erced into coexistance with full on capitalist powers rather than an internal ideological fault? (rather in much the same way that cuba and china are being bullied into accepting the free market now).

Is it not even possible, that post-stalinism and via the implementation of a global soviet hegemony that it could have reverted back to the blueprint envisiged by Lenin? My history may be a little rusty but wasnt Brezhnev of the intention to revert the policies of stalinism?

[Dr Mindbender]

As for the original question, no side could have won the Cold War through military means. Any war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have been nuclear


i wasnt referring to military means though- could the warsaw pact have won via the same means that NATO did?

[PigmerikanMao]

My history may be a little rusty but wasnt Brezhnev of the intention to revert the policies of stalinism?

Khrushchev, and no- history has proven, and will go on proving, that revisionism leads to economic liberalization, liberalization leads to a resurgence in the bourgeois class, and this resurgence ultimately paves the way for capitalism, either by means of party corruption or other schemes.

[Dr Mindbender]

Khrushchev

ah i stand corrected thanks. My point remains though.

[Ismail]

So which was it - a purely defensive arrangement or an imperialist alliance?It was an imperialist alliance. The USSR was the imperialist state, the alliance was of 'lesser' states that were basically puppets. The alliance itself was defensive. It was based in Europe.