Single Status Update
It is difficult to answer your point without a very long and boring lecture, let alone letting off expletives about Stalin and Putin.
For me their similarity to the Romanovs (and to each other) in terms of foreign policy comes from the fact that neither are really communists in the Marxian sense. Things to consider...
1. Marx said "I am not a Marxist". By which he meant, many late 19th Century "Marxists" failed to grasp his and Engels teachings.
2. Lenin wrote a pamphlet entitled. "Left-wing Communism:- An infantile disorder". Which put simply is him moaning about west European communists and independent Marxists failing to do what they are told by Moscow.
3. From it's foundation the Bolshevik Party was shaped by it's dealings with the Tsarist Secret Police. You could say that the KGB learnt everything it knew from them. It was paranoid about infiltration, and rejected the idea of a mass revolution, and followed a vanguardist "we know best" approach.
4. That meant that from almost day one the Soviet Union was a misnomer. Soviets had been worker's councils open to anyone who wanted to take part. Once they were restricted to party members only they ceased to be real "Soviets".
5. All of the above produced two results. Firstly that a communist society (i.e. one based on co-operation between self-governing communes) could never be achieved. Because the Party-led State could never allow itself to pass out of existence. Secondly that Russian foreign policy would always be the primary concern of western "Communist" parties whether they wanted it that way or not.
6. In the pre-war era Stalin's goals were 1) Crush the Left-Opposition at home. 2) Maintain rigid control of the Communist Parties abroad. (This would end in disaster, most tragically, in Germany and Spain). 3) Grab back as much of the old Russian Empire as possible.
7. In the post-war era it meant fixing the borders of the old Empire once again. Then forming a buffer zone in eastern Europe and sabotaging any attempts at Marxist revolution or parliamentary socialism . (Also remember Stalin was quite happy to allow the "west" win in Italy and Greece, and was never particular fond of Tito).
8. Which brings us to Asia. Even ignoring the Bolshevik's abject failure to create a communist society in Russia. Stalin's only real interest was limited to the territory that had been fought over in 1905. Although we are taught to think in terms of "the domino effect" with a monolithic communist movement in control. It has to been borne in mind that Stalin had no control over the fighting in China during the Civil War. And took no part in the war to re-unify Korea. Even after his death Moscow and Beijing continued to squabble. And in South-East Asia it was Vietnam who crushed Pol Pot not the western powers.
9) To my way of thinking the "Fall of Communisn" didn't happen in 1990, it happened in 1914, when the Second International failed to prevent the First World War, and thus paving the way for the Bolsheviks to cock everything up.
Spike aka Warts 'n' all.
- Show previous comments 2 more
I agree with you on Korea. I should have put the word "land" in front of "war".
I would however excuse the Vietmanese over Cambodia. To my way of thinking they didn't "destabilize" a region. That was done by the person/s who drew a line across Vietnam.
In same way that the problems in the Middle East and Africa were created by the UK, French and Belgian governments drawing lines on the map without care for the locals.
Perhaps RE the mid east. However. after ODS the Iraqis were harmless except to terrorists etc and were better left in place. Afghanistan had to happen. We allowed them the chance to hand OBL over and they didnt. 3k Americans dead .. someones gonna pay. Right or wrong, there.ll be rivers of blood over that amd there have been. World.opinion is SE Asia nand the Mideast are rhe US fault. We did our share playing our political games. Brits in mid east drawing lines and French in SE Asia did their parts.
However the NVA by propagating an aggressive war of conquest against the south more or less led to conditions perfect to the tenets Al Bagdadhi learned from Al Zarqawi. Terrorist groups, massacres, blatant illegal activities, lawlessness, and warlord regimes go hand in hand with war torn regions. I believe Zarqawi said something to the effect of theyd only truly be successful operatin in such areas and a Salafist Caliphate would only be able to be born in such an area.
Are the Brit cartographers more to blame.or the Brit and US troops that went into Iraq twice? Regardless its moot now.
I absolutely love these interviews i find on youtube with Russian afgham vets who tell NATO theyre repeating Russias mistakes and to pull out immediately etc. whilst Afghanistan isnt a stunning success Id contend w.ere about 200 percent more effective than the SU EVER was in Afghan.
As far as lines in Korea and Vietnam whilst the US was doing very naughty things in SE Asia going back to 45 the Vietnamese and N Koreans aggressively pursued invading both nations and both reneged on free elections etc.
Of course we know now the Gulf of Tonkin really prolly didnt happen at all as described etc. But the Vietnamese absolutely destabilized the region. We didnt widen the war they did by blithwly ignoring intl borders for the ho chi minh trail and caching weapons in Laos and Cambodia.
And of course the US rlly shot itself in the foot letting Johnson direct airstrikes telling the Vietnamese we wudnt.bomb x y or z or we wud only.go 20 miles into cambodia. We should have left th3 mystery there at least. Johnson btw is on record one time shouting " Who the F is this little $hit ho chi.minh.my pricks bigger than is!!" Lol swear to god.
Whilst VN has more ambiguity N Korea absolutely has no excuse and those 17 and 38 paralell lines wer3 drawn up by the commies as well as the west