Was the Soviet Union Imperalist

Well since I brought up America in the other thread and we shared most of our modern history in a struggle against them, was the Soviet Union Imperialist?

I know the answer is probably "yes", but it might make for a good discussion like the last thread.

How could it not have been? Within months of the ending of WW 2 they had half the European continent under their control by the balls and all those countries rightfully deserved their independence free from Stalin's thuggery but instead were subjugated under the Soviet bloc and divided from the rest of the world for 45 years.

Honestly, what kind of answers are you expecting? I doubt anyone's going to seriously defend the Soviet Union's foreign policies in this thread.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

The Soviet Union wanted World Domination. Of course they were imperialist.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

^^ That depends. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody shows up to argue (let me see if I remember that history teacher) that Soviet foreign policy was the desperate response of a nation that had just survived a devastating land invasion and was now faced with what they perceived as the threat of American "dollar diplomacy" in the form of the Marshall Plan.

I don't think those reasons are necessarily justified, though. I would say that the USSR and America both displayed imperialist proclivities during the Cold War, but in my opinion the Soviet tendency was much more pronounced. That's how Russia had always been; it was the most effective way they knew. Their rhetoric was all about bringing about "world communism" and the Brezhnev Doctrine justified intervention "in the name of world communism" so I would say the imperialist motivations should be fairly obvious.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:17:07 AM by TheGloomer

I guess a better question would be was the Soviet Union good guy Imperalists or dicks.

I'm not looking for an answer as much as a discussion.

I think I'm kind of skeptical of any country after like... Britain, being called imperial. There are a lot of differences. But, it's not in doubt that the CCCP wanted to bend the world to its whims, same as the US, and probably not in doubt that they were far more eeeeevil about it, so there you go.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I would venture that it was at least better than China. At least the Soviets didn't install and prop up horrors like the Khmer Rouge.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Both the USA and USSR were imperialist to some degree. People might disagree depending on their definition of imperialism, but if one is imperialist then both are. They both engaged in activities which undermined the sovereignty of their neo-colonial client states.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:35:21 AM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

^ That's more or less my view.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Pretty much.

edited 10th Jan '11 1:15:00 PM by Tzetze

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I'd argue that they tried to be, and that's why they lost out economically in the long run. Multinational corporate domination of the markets is a more efficient and effective way of maintaing global hegemony than direct control.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I wouldn't really go that far. China backing Khmer Rouge isn't any different from USA backing Pinochet.

All our world super powers are also super assholes. I suppose it's the natural consequence of being strong that there is bound to be elements in the authority structure that wish to exploit that position.

^ Pinochet didn't ethnically cleanse 2 million people, the Khmer Rouge did.

I think it's more important to assess why these people were killed rather than how many were killed.

Indeed but China wasn't the one who put him into power. They formed a temporary alliance with them in response to Vietnam's breakaway from Chinese leadership. That ended after the war and China stopped caring about Cambodia again. It's unforgivable but it's not the same as the CIA training death squads in South America directly.

In fact, USA did more to help him rise to power by bombing the hell out of the country in the first place. That's what convinced everyone to abandon the cities after American air forces dropped more bombs on them than they had ever seen before. Then Pol Pot took over and began his purges.

Fact of the matter is that you feel like comparing one set of atrocities with another but in the end, they're just all atrocities. Was the Armenian genocide worse than the Rwandan one? You're going to play a numbers game for that? I don't think it makes sense to talk about it like that.

edited 10th Jan '11 2:07:49 PM by breadloaf

Ended after the war...?

You are aware that Vietnam invaded Cambodia to end the sheer fucking insanity that was Pol Pot's regime, right? And that China then invaded Vietnam because Vietnam toppled the Khmer Rouge?

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I meant the Sino-Vietnam War, sorry wasn't clear. Not going to defend them and their alliance with Pol Pot, it's disgusting. I just don't want someone somehow claiming that their backing of dictators and mass murder was 'better'.

Pinochet maybe did't kill two million but Soeharto in Indonesia kill several hundred thousand, Indonesia invasion on East Timor cost tens of thousand, plus Nicaragua, Iraq (on Kurds, on Iran), Shah of iran etc.

American supported regime kill more than two million.

In name? They were trying to rally against Imperialism.

In actuality? I'd say they did a bit of it. Because they weren't really Communist to begin with.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Phillipe O, I'm not sure that's a comparison worth making, and I've said why in a different thread.

I wrote that when someone claiming to be conservative claimed the numbers would fall this way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; this isn't the comparison that needs to be made.

edited 14th Jan '11 9:12:58 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.