Why did USSR fight China

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

Interesting, then why did he not let Tito get on with his own revolution like he did with the Chinese? Oh right, because Yugoslavia should be controlled from Moscow.

By communist parties I assume you mean "Communist Parties" of the early 20th century, who essentially Bolshevist organs that attracted left-wing voters who still thought the Bolshevik regime was some kind of utopia, and subsequently subjugated all its party members into the bolshevist grinding machine.

- Asking to create Popular Fronts with liberals once Stalin realised Fascism might well be a threat.

- Asking subsequent Popular Fronts to halt revolutionary measures in Catalonia and France because Uncle Joe was getting jealous of, wait for it, actual revolutionary measures from anarchists, trotskyists, Left Comms, etc.

- Total abandonment of the Greek Communist Party during the Civil War after a deal done with Churchill.

When Tito, Mao and other legitemate revolutionary bodies around the world refused to take orders from Stalin and the Comintern/Cominform, he threw a paddy. Some exporter of socialism, this guy.

What about all the Satellite states in Eastern Europe? Are you denying they weren't under direct Bolshevist control?

Stalin was the first to say that a world war was not inevitable:

"Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable?

Answer (Stalin): No."

When is war not inevitable?, J.V. Stalin

Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable?

Answer: No. At least at the present time it cannot be considered inevitable.

Of course, in the United States of America, in Britain, as also in France, there are aggressive forces thirsting for a new war. They need war to obtain super-profits, to plunder other countries. These are the billionaires and millionaires who regard war as an item of income which gives colossal profits.

They, these aggressive forces, control the reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time they are afraid of their peoples who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of peace. Therefore they are trying to use the reactionary governments in order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as aggressive. They are trying to deceive their peoples in order to impose on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.

Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments.

Precisely for this reason they turned down the proposal of the Soviet Union for the conclusion of a Peace Pact, for the reduction of armaments, for banning the atomic weapon, fearing that the adoption of these proposals would undermine the aggressive measures of the reactionary governments and make the armaments race unnecessary.

What will be the end of this struggle between the aggressive and peace-loving forces?

Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples will take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war.

That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of peace as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of first-rate importance.

As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining peace.

This is the full context:
This interview was conducted in 1951. In 1952 he put out Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. It is obvious that Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts. He stressed that in the present time wars could be averted so long as the forces of peace were willing to defend that cause to the end. I'd imagine it's hardly different than the Bolsheviks relying on the solidarity campaigns of various West European workers and organizations against the plans of their governments to overthrow or otherwise isolate Soviet Russia on the world stage.

He stressed that in the present time wars could be averted so long as the forces of peace were willing to defend that cause to the end.

If Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts it doesn't matter if one text is from 1951 and the other in 1952. The issue you were reffering to was not of the similarity between the Bolshevik position in early revolutionary years and Stalin's 30 years latter but the inevitability of a world war which both Stalin and Khrushchev denied it.

Stalin was referring to a global war, and Khrushchev was referring to wars of imperialism in general. Two distinct concepts, which you merged together for some reason.

By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

Tell me, which is the difference between a WORLD war and a GLOBAL war? Didn't you read Ismail's post?

None. I merely referred to world wars as global wars---a common appelation, which seems to have thrown you into confusion. Are you still able to follow along?

We're debating to the distinction between Stalin's quote referring to global wars (or world wars, if that keeps you from becoming disoriented) and Khrushchev's quote referring to imperialist wars. You're contending that they're referring to the same thing, in order to draw a line of continuity between Stalin and Khrushchev. That is obviously ridiculous, as the two terms refer to two different scenarios.

If you need an example, consider that the 1950-2000 period was filled with imperialist wars, but no global wars. An obvious distinction, I'd think.

Stalin stated that world wars could be averted for certain periods. Khrushchev declared that the existence of nuclear weapons had fundamentally altered the situation in the world and that wars were no longer inevitable even under imperialism.

If a Marxist says that it is possible for capitalism to stave off collapse for a period, it hardly means that capitalism therefore will exist forever and that objective forces do not exist for its destruction at the hands of the proletariat. The objective conditions exist under imperialism for world wars, Khrushchev denied these conditions.

First off, Ismail didn't quote Khrushchev.

Secondly, that is a completely idiotic interpretation of what Khrushchev meant when he spoke about the inevitability of a new war. Just like Stalin he was talking about a global confrontation between socialist and capitalist countries.

Khrushchev didn't deny that capitalism would eventually fall and even made a slogan for it.

I don't see where Khrushchev said that even under imperialism wars were no longer inevitable. Pretty much like Stalin he relies on political and social peace forces to ensure that the reactionary governments and agents don't push forward their war agenda.

Yugoslavia did have its own revolution, assisted by the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism. Tito took that revolution and wrecked it.

The Soviet Union and fraternal communist parties reciprocated in kind by expelling Yugoslavia from the Cominform and noting his bourgeois nationalism and anti-communism.

The Yugoslavs responded by deepening their links with Western capital and persecuting "Stalinists" such as Hebrang.

Your issue is evidently with Bolshevism itself, you just target Stalin because that's a popular thing to do. Such was also what the Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists did.

The Popular Fronts had been called for in Spain and France by the local communists. They greeted the Seventh Congress of the Comintern and its line with applause.

It was the PCE that held high the banner of revolution in Spain against the Trotskyites and certain sections of the anarchists who undermined the anti-fascist struggle and thus helped doom the Republic and usher in decades of Francoism.

The Yugoslavs betrayed the KKE. It was the "Stalinist" Albanians and Bulgarians who gave the majority of support to the Greek struggle after the Soviet-Yugoslav split. Stalin, furthermore, knew that the KKE had made serious errors and that, as a result of this, it was not in a position to overthrow the government. His comments on the subject made it clear he would have continued strongly backing the KKE had it been capable of seizing state power.

You seem infatuated with bourgeois nationalists operating under "revolutionary" rhetoric. Whether it be Tito, Mao, Castro or others, so long as they attack Stalin it's a-okay.

I don't operate under a reactionary understanding Bolshevism which posits that every movement with ties to the USSR was nothing more than an insidious mask for the international communist conspiracy.

It was the Khrushchevites who founded the Warsaw Treaty Organization and who expounded on the "international socialist division of labor," which did away with the line of Stalin in the construction of the economies of Eastern Europe in favor of "specializing" them to serve Soviet social-imperialism.

Yes he did, on the first page.

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

You retorted that Stalin said the same thing, and produced a quote of him saying something different. World wars and imperialist wars are clearly different. That's not an "interpretation" but an observation of the fact that two explicitly different words were used. You can claim they mean the same thing, but they objectively don't. There's no way Stalin was referring to the latter, because such wars were happening at the time of Stalin's quote.

You're missing the point. The implication of what Khrushchev said is the same as if he were to take an instance of capitalism staving off collapse, and use it to claim capitalism could go on forever. The fact that he said one thing with regard to wars and another thing with regard to modes of production is a testament to how inconsistent he was.

He stated it in 1956, when he stated capitalism and socialism could coexist in peace. I believe that's the Khrushchev quote we've been referring to. If one presumes both can coexist in peace (and Khrushchev meant for good, to specifically distinguish himself from his predecessor), then it follows that one presumes war isn't inevitable.

Most historians agree that the Red Army had little to do with the liberation of Yugoslavia, and that it was mostly Communist Partisans who liberated Yugoslavia, just like in your beloved Albania.

How is Tito a bourgeois nationalist when he reaffirmed his desire for a Federal Yugoslavia where all ethnicities would be treated equally and effectively brought them together.

How is Stalin not a bourgeois nationalist when his prime foreign policy interests consisted at first to hijack revolutionary movements to bring them under his control.

Then he engaged in typical Russian irredentism with the invasions of Finalnd, the Baltic states, and Eastern Poland (collaborating with Hitler to ensure that last one).

"The three [Baltic] States had all gained their independence as a result of the disintegration of the Russian Empire. It was widely held in the Soviet Union that they had been 'snatched' (to use Zinoviev's word) from Russia with German aid, and maintained by the forces of the Entente, which had been active in suppressing the Communist regimes established in the winter of 1918-19 in the wake of German withdrawal. Relations between the Soviet Union and the three republics during the 1920s were cool, but on the whole, correct. There were some attempts at subversion, culminating in the abortive Communist coup in Estonia in 1924, but with the demise of the Comintern as a leading agent of Soviet foreign policy, the Soviet Union posed no immediate or evident threat to the integrity of the Baltic States. The resurgence of Germany in the 1930s altered the political scene in the Baltic area. In the event of conflict with Germany, the Soviet Union could not afford to have its front door opened by the defection of pro-German States on its very doorstep. This was clearly spelled out by Andrei Zhdanov to the VIIIth Congress of Soviets in November 1936. According to the Latvian chargé d'affaires, Zhdanov warned the governments of neighbouring States that if they drifted too far in the direction of Fascism 'they might feel the strength of the Soviet Union, and the window of the Soviet Union might well be widened'."
(Martin McCauley (Ed.). Communist Power in Europe, 1944-1949. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1977. p. 22.)

"As Stalin told the Latvian Foreign Minister, who was summoned in turn on 2 October [1939], the demands of the U.S.S.R. arose purely out of the wartime situation: the Soviet government had no desire to encroach upon the internal affairs of Latvia. He informed Munters with brutal frankness that a division of spheres of interest between the U.S.S.R. and Germany had already taken place, and that 'as far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you'."
(Ibid. p. 25.)

"During the period of the Winter War, the Soviet Union scrupulously observed the terms of the treaties with the Baltic States. Red Army troops were strictly disciplined and behaved with absolute correctness. Attempts by pro-Communist elements to establish contacts with Russian troops were discouraged, and access to Soviet embassies was officially denied. The Soviet government made no representations when large numbers of Latvian Communists were arrested in January 1940, and in no way interfered in the running of the affairs of the three countries. At the end of October [1939], Molotov denounced as malevolent talk the rumours of the imminent sovietisation of the Baltic States: in December, Stalin spoke with satisfaction of the smooth running of the treaty with Estonia and assured the visiting Estonian military delegation of the continued independence of their country."
(Ibid. p. 26.)

"There is evidence of Stalin's mistrust of native Communists. In October 1939, he told the Lithuanian Foreign Minister that it was no concern of the Soviet Union how the Lithuanian government dealt with its Communists; and, even more bluntly, he informed the Latvian Foreign Minister: 'There are no Communists outside Russia. What you have in Latvia are Trotsk[y]ists: if they cause you trouble, shoot them.' In the deportations of June 1941, not a few Party members found themselves in trains bound for the interior of the Socialist fatherland.

The evidence available would suggest that considerable sections of the urban proletariat, including the Jewish and Russian minorities, supported the new order, whilst many democratic and left-wing intellectuals were prepared to give the new regimes a chance to fulfil their promises. The new governments, composed of left-wing democrats rather than Communists, did indeed appear to represent a fresh wind of change in an atmosphere which had become stagnant during the last years of the dictatorships. All-round wage increases were decreed in June, laws against hoarding and speculation were passed, whilst assurances were given to peasant landholders that their land would not be touched. The bastions of the old order were speedily demolished and replaced by new organisations. In Latvia, for example, the law of 26 June provided for the creation of workers' committees in factories employing more than twenty persons, whilst on 8 July a law establishing the politruk system in the army was passed. The Estonian trade unions, which had managed to preserve much of their independence during the Päts' regime, were taken over by the Communists on 20 June. The Kaitseliit guards were dissolved on 27 June, and replaced by a workers' militia under the direct control of the Communist-dominated Ministry of the Interior. Widespread purges of local government and the bureaucracy occurred in the last days of June and early July, with Communists installed in vital positions. Nevertheless, the lack of Party members in all three countries—and, quite possibly, Soviet mistrust of local Communists—meant that 'progressive elements' willing to serve the regime were used. In rural areas, there appears to have been less change, and appointees of the old regimes remained in office... The left-wing intellectuals who formed the governments of Latvia and Estonia remained in favour and high office until the purges of 1950, when they were accused of bourgeois nationalism and replaced by more reliable Soviet-trained Communists."
(Ibid. pp. 29-31.)

Most unbiased historians both left and right almost unanimously agree that although the PCE was the strongest faction (due to Russian armament as it is after all a Bolshevist Communist Party), its ultimate quest for supremacy was what led the Trots and Anarchists to disassociate themselves from the Popular Front.

They are not responsible for the loss to Franco though. Foreign intervention was what tipped the balance. The USSR halted its foreign intervention after the Germano-Soviet pact. Hmmm...I wonder why?

Again making excuses for Stalin when you know that part of the post-War agreement with Churchill and Truman was to leave Greece to be put under Western influence.

It was Stalin who had the elections rigged and his own stooges put into power in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania etc

But again, its the revisionist fault. Always the revisionists fault without realising they are a product of the Stalinist regime.

Saying that Tito's Yugoslavia was nationalistic etc. is utterly wrong.

And the greek partisans had the help of the Yugoslavian people i have living relatives who had fought in the civil war and i know a man who lost an arm in it. The KKE even had camps in Yugoslavia. Tito was willing to help KKE and Yugoslavia was the main supporter of the Greek Anti-Fascist with people because lots of Macedonians live in the northern part of Greece who were part of the Communist party of Macedonia's partisans. It was only after KKE decided to ditch Tito for Stalin did he withdraw his support.

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

But Stalin signed the Molotov ribbentrop pact and didn't really prepare much for the Nazi invasion, he was more determined with invading poland.

He also signed numerous pacts with capitalist states... even oversaw trade with Nazi Germany.

So clearly his usage of peaceful coexistance is another word for "joining the U.N. after dissolving comintern"

Now tell me where is Khrushchev's quote?

And such wars were happening also at the time of Khruschev's statement. So according to your own logic Khruschev couldn't be talking about imperialist wars.

He showed the same position Stalin did before him.

"Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?

Stalin: Of course they can."

Coexistence, American-Soviet Cooperation,Atomic Energy, Europe, J.V.Stalin.

Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?
Stalin: Of course they can. The difference between them is not important so far as co-operation is concerned. The systems in Germany and the United States are the same but war broke out between them. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. systems are different but we didn’t wage war against each other and the U.S.S.R. does not propose to. If during the war they could co-operate, why can’t they today in peace, given the wish to co-operate? Of course, if there is no desire to co-operate, even with the same economic system they may fall out as was the case with Germany.
Stassen: I believe, of course, that they can co-operate if they both have the desire to, but there have been many statements about not being able to co-operate. Some of these were made by the Generalissimo himself before the war. But is it possible, now that the fascist axis has been defeated, that the situation has changed?
Stalin: It’s not possible that I said that the two economic systems could not co-operate. Co-operation ideas were expressed by Lenin. I might have said that one system was reluctant to co-operate, but that concerned only one side. But as to the possibility of co-operation, I adhere to Lenin who expressed both the possibility and the desire of co-operation. As to the desire of the people to co-operate on the part of the U.S.S.R. and the Party, it is possible—and the two countries could only benefit by this co-operation.