Socialists Remain Anti-Communist

AFAIC my only crime would have been to support the internal opposition to one extra communist regime.

It was clear enough that it would descend into a war, that the opposition was even more radical than the government, and that lots of people would die.

I think those are crimes enough. The rest was there for greater effect.

Besides, when was the last time that fueling a long-term insurgency war had positive benefits especially in terms of stability? He should have known about that.
 
It was clear enough that it would descend into a war, that the opposition was even more radical than the government, and that lots of people would die.

The Soviets weren't forced to invade Afghanistan any more than the Americans were forced to invade Cuba.

I think those are crimes enough. The rest was there for greater effect.

Besides, when was the last time that fueling a long-term insurgency war had positive benefits especially in terms of stability? He should have known about that.
So you believe that no government should ever attempt to overthrow another government from within? Are you sure you want to roll with that?

In any case, the Soviets had a long history of breaking that rule for their benefit and if I was in Zbig's shoes I'd either break it against their benefit or just forfeit the Cold War. Every kopek spent fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan is a kopek not spent fueling one in Turkey or Mexico or Zaire or Thailand. Keep them on the defensive so they won't go on the offensive. After what the '70s had wrought to the Cold War this was a policy implemented not by Reagan (for whom I have a great distaste) but by Carter.
 
Last edited:
In any case, the Soviets had a long history of breaking that rule for their benefit and if I was in Zbig's shoes I'd either break it against their benefit or just forfeit the Cold War.

Hah. I am not arguing the Soviets were any better nor am I some kind of Carterite. I'm just arguing from a human standpoint.

You like saying that the Soviets were free to not do this and not do that. Well, so were the Americans. They were free to not start the Afghan mess at all, and if they couldn't foresee the consequences, well, it's just that much more damning, isn't it?
 
Hah. I am not arguing the Soviets were any better nor am I some kind of Carterite. I'm just arguing from a human standpoint.

From a human standpoint every possible confrontation in history should have been avoided. The CSA should be independent, Japan should have been allowed to have as much of China as it wanted, same for Germany and Poland, Tito shouldn't have fought the Nazis, Israel should have rolled over and died, Vietnam and Algeria should be French, South Africa should still have apartheid, Kim Il-sung should have been the leader of a united Korea, Iraq should control Kuwait and part of Iran, Noriega should still rule Panama, the former Yugoslavia should have settled its new borders through ethnic cleansing... I can do this all day if I have to.

You like saying that the Soviets were free to not do this and not do that. Well, so were the Americans. They were free to not start the Afghan mess at all, and if they couldn't foresee the consequences, well, it's just that much more damning, isn't it?
The Afghan mess started when the Soviet Union was not content with allowing Afghanistan to have a Soviet-friendly monarchy.

I find it curious that you act as if the present-day situation was somehow foreseeable in 1979 when it actually required several subsequent decisions and events that were as monumental as Zbig provoking the Soviets, such as the US ignoring Afghanistan after '89, Pakistan deciding to drop Hekmatyar for the Taliban or Iran deciding not to go to war against the Taliban in '97. Maybe there are roads through history that lack intersections, but they sure as hell don't run for 30 years. If you believe OTL to be inevitable then what are you even doing on this forum?
 
You like saying that the Soviets were free to not do this and not do that. Well, so were the Americans. They were free to not start the Afghan mess at all, and if they couldn't foresee the consequences, well, it's just that much more damning, isn't it?

The Soviet puppets in Afghanistan started "the Afghan mess" by engaging in nasty behavior.

They liked to shove broken Fanta bottles into people's rectums and their idea of "land reform" involved killing village mullahs and landowners, raping women, and defecating on people's dishes.

This is from Soldiers of God by Lawrence Kaplan, who traveled with a band of Mujahadeen in the 1980s.
 
The Soviet puppets in Afghanistan started "the Afghan mess" by engaging in nasty behavior.

The opposition, of course, did a whole lot better before, during, and after the conflict. Whichever way you spin it, you lose.

As for Pervez - basically, Godwin meets non-sequitur, describes you rather well.
 
Last edited:
As for Pervez - basically, Godwin meets non-sequitur, describes you rather well.

When someone asks a question that begins with "when was the last time" I take it that I have permission to unholster my history book within the next 10 posts. Or is the "human standpoint" only applicable to Afghanistan?
 
It all depends on which country and which socialist faction we're talking about, in which era.

This is a seriously open ended question, like asking, "Why aren't all conservatives also enthusiastic royalists?" Or, "All right-of-centre people are natuarally pro-war, pro-empire building, aren't they?"

(Er, I'm responding to post #1, not the stuff on this page.)
 
I was under the impression that socialists used to be VERY anti-Communist. Hendryk, who describes himself as a "moderate social democrat," has criticized Communism on the board.

However, there seems to be a lot of Soviet apologia in socialist circles, such as William Blum's Killing Hope, in which he basically endorsed the "revisionist theory" (the US, not the USSR, was responsible for the Cold War) and endorsed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to boot.

So how might we make it so socialists remain extremely anti-Communist?

Vietnam might be the big source for PODs, as the "revisionist arguement" gained credibility as a result of the Vietnam War and IIRC it was Vietnam that radicalized Blum.

Most Socialists (whether Democratic Socialists or Social-Democrats) have always been strongly anti-communist (especially the Social-Democrats).
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, the anti-communist stance in the left has increased, as people know how things were.
What sometimes happens is that some people on the left, may be making such statements driven by opposition to what they perceive as totally opposite policies by the USA.
 

Deleted member 5719

This is from Soldiers of God by Lawrence Kaplan, who traveled with a band of Mujahadeen in the 1980s.

Not a particularly reliable source, but it's true everybody commited atrocities in Afghanistan. Reading reports from the time, it's pretty clear the Mujahadeen took part in horrific atrocities, especially against teachers who dared to teach girls to read, though I don't doubt loyalist forces also killed and tortured.
 
Not a particularly reliable source, but it's true everybody commited atrocities in Afghanistan. Reading reports from the time, it's pretty clear the Mujahadeen took part in horrific atrocities, especially against teachers who dared to teach girls to read, though I don't doubt loyalist forces also killed and tortured.

Not a reliable source?

He was bloody there.

He also said it was Soviet policy to kill Western journalists who traveled with the Muj.

And the Muj were a mishmash of factions. I could imagine mujahadeen loyal to Hekmatyar (a raving Islamist) killing teachers who taught girls to read, but I can't imagine those loyal to Ahmed Shah Massoud (one of the greatest Muj commanders who defeated seven Soviet offensives) doing the same thing.
 
Top