Non-Communist Soviet stooges

I was wondering, seeing as how in the Cold War there were often tinpot authoritarian dictators who managed to get U.S. backing because they attacked communists, could a tinpot dictator likewise get the support of the Soviets by paying the teeniest of lipservice to communism and attacking people they labeled capitalists and fascists?
 
I was wondering, seeing as how in the Cold War there were often tinpot authoritarian dictators who managed to get U.S. backing because they attacked communists, could a tinpot dictator likewise get the support of the Soviets by paying the teeniest of lipservice to communism and attacking people they labeled capitalists and fascists?
In my opiion it's RH(Naser, f.e)
 
I was wondering, seeing as how in the Cold War there were often tinpot authoritarian dictators who managed to get U.S. backing because they attacked communists, could a tinpot dictator likewise get the support of the Soviets by paying the teeniest of lipservice to communism and attacking people they labeled capitalists and fascists?

They did OTL - Nasser for one, as well as that Somali dictator or something.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Syria. Libya. there are others. Dictators that were against the US but not for communism. Its the Arabs who came up with the saying "The enemy of MY enemy is my friend."
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Syria. Libya. there are others. Dictators that were against the US but not for communism. Its the Arabs who came up with the saying "The enemy of MY enemy is my friend."

and then extended it into this:
i will kick my brother ass,
but him and I will kick our cousins ass,
and the 3 of us will kick the ass of another family
and all of us will kick the ass of another villiage
and the entire country will kick the ass of another arab country
but the 2 arab country will (attempt to) kick the ass of a non-arab country

:D
 
I was wondering, seeing as how in the Cold War there were often tinpot authoritarian dictators who managed to get U.S. backing because they attacked communists, could a tinpot dictator likewise get the support of the Soviets by paying the teeniest of lipservice to communism and attacking people they labeled capitalists and fascists?

Some people say that President Kekkonen was one. :D
 
Didn't others, like Saddam, get Soviet aid without even having to play much of a Communist fiddle ? I assume that's where all his tanks, aircraft etc came from !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Wouldn't he rather count as the opposite - someone who while being forced to pay lip service to Soviet ideals extricated his country from their influence to some degree?

There's this Finnish historian, Hannu Rautkallio, who seems to think that Kekkonen was nothing short of a traitorous KGB agent, who ruled Finland on behalf of the Russians. ;):rolleyes: (If I can exaggerate a bit.)

Anyway, Kekkonen surely used his good relations with the Soviet leaders against his enemies at home. And one of biggest reasons he was supported so widely by different parties and by the majority of people, probably his most important political capital, was that he was man the Soviet leaders trusted. Or even, the man the Soviet leaders trusted.

That gave him huge advandage against.. Well, everyone. And that's why he was President of the Republic for 25 years.
 
Grey Wolf said:
Didn't others, like Saddam, get Soviet aid without even having to play much of a Communist fiddle ? I assume that's where all his tanks, aircraft etc came from !

Most. He also bought some other stuff, mostly french I think.


And let's not forget that the US supplied Iraq with howitzers, helicopters, ammunition, chemical weapons material etc. during the Iran-Iraq War, though usually through third parties.
 

Thande

Donor
And let's not forget that the US supplied Iraq with howitzers, helicopters, ammunition, chemical weapons material etc. during the Iran-Iraq War, though usually through third parties.
Well, everyone back then was against the new Iranian regime - East, West, China, NAG - which makes it all the more remarkable that it's still around today.

Anyway, I think virtually anyone the Soviets backed in Africa (cf. Angola) qualifies for this.
 
Sukarno: it's debatable whether he was actually a Marxist, but he paid at least lip service to socialism

Qadaffi: hard to pin down just what he is, but never declared himself a communist

Assad: the Soviets were willing to tolerate Assad's suppression of the local Syrian communists in exchange for having him as a strategic ally.
 
Then there's Burma/Myanmar. Not quite a communist regime as such, but is allied to china and notionally follows an ideology of "The Burmese Way to Socialism" - although it has since veared away from most state-planning, collectivism and other traditional hallmarks of socialism.
 

burmafrd

Banned
There has been for a while this theory that the US heavily supported Saddam during the early 80's. This despite the fact that 90% of the Iraqi weapons were either warsaw pact or soviet built. The chemical capabilities were bought from Germany. France helped there as well. The US did supply Iraq with satelite and other intelligence- no surprise since this was early 80's and we hated no one more then the Iranians at that point. Saddam also had a lot of oil money and a lot of financial support from the Oil Sheikdoms who wanted Iran controlled and kept far away.
 
Top