The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?

Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Dagget,

If you look back at all my posts which you were supposedly rebutting you will notice that the topic for discussion between you and I has been " Was the Soviet Empire expanionist ever", the whole time. I haven't strayed from that subject because I believe your statement is preposterous and entirely indefensible.

Again, I don't care whether you haven't reciprocated by pointing out Hitler's mistakes. IT COULD NOT BE MORE IRRELEVANT.

If you want to finish at least one of the debates you start, rather than moving on to some other topic when it gets tough, I'll be very happy to answer your silly question. But I'm not interseted in changing the subject every time you realise you made a mistake.

BTW, After we finish with your ridiculous suggestion that the "Soviet Union was not ever expansionist" you can then tell me where exactly I have "shown an astonishing disdain for the principle of self-determination" which is a total fiction of your hyperactive mind.

Furthermore, I have not ever suggested that "Stalin's crimes inside the Soviet Union and his treatment of Eastern Europe somehow gives a moral blank cheque to Western governments "
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 11 September 2008 8:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

The topic I planned to discuss on this forum was "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?"

No-one insisted that you join in this discussion if that is not what you wanted to discuss. If you had wanted to discuss whether or not the Soviet Union, the US, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, the ancient Hittites, the Klingons or the Tralfamadorians were ever expansionist, you were perfectly free to start such a discussion forum.

I started the forum because I judged that the posts I was making were getting off topic and because the question I asked happened to be one I have wanted to write about for some time.

Now, to go, in my view, slightly off-topic, in regard to the question: was the Soviet Union expansionist?

Well, I suppose it was, in a sense, and so too were a number of other big powers on the globe at the time including the U.S. However the Soviet Union was not expansionist in the same sense that U.S. cold war propagandists tried to depict it.

It was clearly not interested in expanding into Indochina in 1954 and the same is true of the other examples I have given. As for countries in Eastern Europe and, momentarily, in Afghanistan it was a different matter.

Whilst I don't excuse the often extremely poor treatment of Eastern Europe, I think it should be acknowledged that the Soviet union had legitimate concerns about its own security, particularly when it faced an adversary that had on several occasions threatened to use nuclear weapons to get its own way, including in Iran in 1947 and in Korea in 1953. As it had already used nuclear weapons on Japan and had devastated North Korea (as well as, prior to that, Germany and Japan) with conventional bombs, I think the wariness of the rulers of the Soviet Union was not altogether unreasonable.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 12 September 2008 12:44:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,

It’s great to see that you can be thoughtful and measured when you want to be.

Without attempting to excuse anything, it must be acknowledged that the Soviet Empire under Stalin and the other strong men had a fervent desire to see Communism defeat Capitalism, preferably under Soviet stewardship.

The KGB penetration of nearly every foreign gov’t and intelligence services had far more than a purely defensive focus.

You talk about the Vietnam war as though it were a purely local affair that America intervened in. I wonder where you think the trucks, artillery, machine guns, AK47’s etc came from to support North Vietnams war effort? North Vietnam didn’t manufacture the T-54 tanks that crashed through the palace gates. Chinese involvement in the war dates back to 1950 when they sent advisors to help the communist forces. Between 1965 and 1970, 320,000 Chinese soldiers served in North Vietnam.

You say >> “It was clearly not interested in expanding into Indochina in 1954”

Actually that’s not right. The Russians and Chinese felt that without the partioning the US would have immediately become involved and this would have damaged the fledgling communist regime. The breathing space that the creation of North Vietnam allowed was instrumental in the final victory for the communist forces. It fit well into Mao’s 3 stage process of revolution.

“ Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, fear[ed] U.S. intervention in Indochina and another Korea-style conflict with the United States, urged the DRV to accept a negotiated settlement and the temporary partition of Vietnam at the 17th parallel.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#cite_ref-138

You say >> “and had devastated North Korea (as well as, prior to that, Germany and Japan) with conventional bombs … “

This entirely ignores the massive successes of the Soviet Army during the war against Hitler and its offensive/defensive capabilities. If you just look at a map of the Soviet sphere during the cold war you would see that it was free world forces and not the Soviets who were in any danger from conventional arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png

Furthermore the Soviets very quickly achieved nuclear parity as well.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 12 September 2008 1:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yeah Ludwig, international communists everywhere are enormously invigorated? What pompous nonsense."

Crikey Paul, that's nice. We've had a number of exchanges on this forum, amicably...and the first time you have any disagreement you have no qualms about casting any goodwill aside...or any tact, politeness, decency, etc. Are you just completely intolerant of views different to your own, or of those who express them?

Top effort mate.

Now, OF COURSE democracy is severely compromised if those who espouse it see fit to operate outside of democratic principles when it suits them....in ways as significant as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in particular. OF COURSE opposition forced are invigorated (or whatever word you might choose) by such actions. OF COURSE the push for democracy is gravely undermined by such actions.

How on earth could you argue otherwise?
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 13 September 2008 2:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,

I must apologize. You're right, I could definitely be more polite.

So, I agree that you are right when you say that bending the rules to defend freedom is counterproductive and provides the enemy with propoganda. It's a bit like f@cking for Jesus, if you take my meaning.

I suppose what I most take issue with is the enormous part of your claim. I would argue that in AlQaeda and the other global jihadis we have an implacable enemy who, prior to a shot being fired in anger, already had an olympic supply of invigoration, through their steadfast religous beliefs.

I think that you would agree that in war time, sometimes it is very difficult to know where exactly the line should be drawn. (Abu Ghraib is NOT one of those times).

I am thinking more about the combat leader who needs to make a real-time decision on whether to bomb a known insurgent position. He needs to weigh up the fact that the particular insurgent he is targetting might be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people if he is let go; against the possibility of innocent casuaties. This is a very real scenario and combat leaders make those decisions every day, sometimes with the whole picture and they have very limited time to do so.

Dagget,

You say >> "I think ... the Soviet union had legitimate concerns about its own security,"

I think the Soviet Union did have concerns for its own security. At the same time I think you could acknowledge that the US and Europe also had entirely valid security concerns. The Soviet tank armies, poised to flow down the Fulda Gap on the central plains of Germany were only going to encounter the US and Allied forces as speed bumps on their way to the french coast. This scared the bejesus out of NATO planners.

And then the Russians decided they were going to place missiles in Cuba and force a naval blockade of the island in order to do so.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 13 September 2008 4:42:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L,

Actually, I consider that I have been "thoughtful and measured" all along.

---

Paul.L wrote, "The Russians and Chinese felt that without the partitioning the US would have immediately become involved ..."

Without partitioning, there would have been elections up and down the country which the Vietnamese Communist Party would have easily won, as every credible observer was predicting.

What possible reason would the U.S. have had to invade other than not liking the expected election outcome?

Paul.L continued, "... and this would have damaged the fledgling communist regime. The breathing space that the creation of North Vietnam allowed was instrumental in the final victory for the communist forces. It fit well into Mao’s 3 stage process of revolution."

Such a brilliant strategy! Having millions more killed over the next two decades and their country ravaged in order to reconquer what had already conquered.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 14 September 2008 12:37:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy