• @thetablesareorange
    link
    201 year ago

    the term cold war itslef is a propaganda term invented by none other than George Orwell. The accusation being that the soviets were secretly waging a cold war against the US and Britain and that they needed to fight back. The existence of a cold war is a conspiracy theory itself. Anyone from labor unions, to independence movements, could be declared a part of some global soviet conspiracy theory to make everyone speak Russian and practice interracial marriage or whatever racist white people in the 1950’s feared the most.

  • @Kirbywithwhip1987
    link
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t like using that term but imperialists had no chance, if not for Garbagechev, Yeltsin and Khruschev’s bullshit and fight with Mao, world map would be at least 90-95% communist by now

  • @CITRUS
    link
    161 year ago

    Not a lot of time to comment at the moment–you guys know how wordy I can get, even for a tankie–but I will list some factors that have had an effect, not really any solutions to how they could have won though. I will MAYBE come back and flush out some things, but I am highly ignorant in history at this time so other comrades might be more of use to you.

    Things to consider:

    • The Backwards State of Tsarist Russia (and the aftermath of WW1/“Civil” War) that the USSR inherited compared to the States generous development at the time.
    • The Disastrous Effect of WW2 on the USSR compared to the War Profiteering Boom of the US.
    • After Stalin’s death there was a rightwing takeover from Khrushchev, steering the USSR further and further away from the path of socialism. This departure from Marxism-Leninism is what brought the PRC to be against the USSR, causing the Sino-Soviet split. -The party’s departure from ML theory and too much of its resources being invested into heavy industry and especially the military, let there be a decent chunk of the population discontent–do mind, the majority voted to keep the USSR intact.
    • At the same time Khrushchev’s “idea of peaceful coexistence” led to the AES states taking a much less active role against imperialism.
    • The Imperialists eventually won with the help of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, raping and pillaging the Soviet Union.

    Let me add this tho. While we refer to the era of “the Cold War” as the era of the USSR specifically resisting US imperialism, in fact there’s no such thing as “The Cold War”. First of all it wasn’t cold, the Imperialists were very active in massacring colonial independence movements and especially communist ones. But moreover, as long as an AES state exists (DOTP) and an Imperialist state exists (DOTB) there will ALWAYS be a contradiction, and thus Imperialist aggression. What we call “cold wars” are just sharpened contradictions in the international class struggle. The “Cold war” didn’t begin with postWW2 powers, it began with the October Revolution and you can see this with the 14 countries invading it. It didn’t end, even at its peak relationship the US still smeared China, and now we are seeing a resurgence as anti-imperialist sentiment grows again. The class struggle ebbs and flows, and imperialist reaction will exert back the force pushed on it.

    Again this was rushed but just wanted to put something down.

  • @cayde6ml
    link
    151 year ago

    I hate Dima Vorobiev with a passion. He’s a former Soviet “propagandist” who has his own website, answers questions on Quora, and generally peddles anti-communist nonsense.

    That being said, not everything he says is bullshit, and I think he provides an interesting window in regards to certain elements of the Cold War.

    I think he has a point where the Soviet Union may have had a strategy at continuing past East Germany and straight up trying to liberate all of Germany, and fighting against Europe with the help of the Soviet’s allied states.

    That being said, that would have been foolhardy and dangerous, but a non-zero chance of victory.

    The Sino-Soviet split was a disaster and alot of digital ink has been spilled rehashing the how’s and why’s. I think if the Sino-Soviet split never happened, or if China and the USSR made up relatively quickly, they could have launched a joint operation to support each other more and begin sending even more money, guns and resources to each other for practically free, and arming communist rebel groups all over the world, and eventually being able to free the world from capitalism.

  • @Binkie55
    link
    141 year ago

    I think if someone more competent like Molotov or Malenkov took power instead of Corn.

  • @lxvi
    link
    131 year ago

    I think they were wrong to not side more closely with China. They allowed the poison to grow right after Stalin. They were doomed. I think its wrong to blame the United States for the collapse. Cuba and the DPRK are still here despite everything they had to overcome, not excluding the collapse of the USSR. AS much as I love the USSR and recognize their accomplishments, I have to also recognize that it was their contradictions between the working people and the intelligentsia that lead to their collapse.

    The biggest thing is that the revolution is not over at the founding of the socialist republic. The revolution has to continue generations afterwards. A Mass-Line has to be deeply established and re-established between the party and the people. The intelligentsia must be forced to take a proletarian mold. A heavy hand against bourgeois institutions and mafia tendencies must be maintained for generations.

    The USSR failed in all of these things. On top of that they didn’t respect other socialist and third world nations as much as they should have. They were too afraid to offer support where they should have. They were too submissive to the US.

    I love the USSR. I think that over all they were one of the greatest civilizations to ever exist. They shook history and accomplished amazing things. But there were growing contradictions in it that only got worse over time. Even their dissolution was done against the will of the people. How could that be? That is the central failure.

  • @Kultronx
    link
    11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    -Enter the war against Japan a few months earlier and secure all of Korea

    -Develop closer ties with Yugoslavia and China

    -Kick Kruschev and Beria out ASAP

    -Do not support the creation of Israel

    -Put more emphasis on supporting Western countries’ colonies’ independance as well African Americans and Indigenous Americans

    • Go to war with the west over the Berlin blockade

    It wouldn’t be pretty and obv hindsight is 20/20 but this would at least would’ve prevented American hegemony over Europe and Asia

  • @Shaggy0291
    link
    81 year ago

    Scenario 1: Win Polish-Soviet War of 1919 with a decisive victory in the battle of Warsaw. Proceed with original plan to secure revolution in Germany. Subsequently attempt to secure peace with the entente powers, but be fully prepared for renewed conflict if this cannot be achieved. In the event peace can be made, the balance of forces will now be far more greatly in favour of the communists. In such an event, they will steadily come to dominate European affairs, and by extension world affairs.

    Scenario 2: Malenkov prevents Khrushchev from rising to power when Stalin dies. Revisionist thought subsequently never takes hold in the USSR and class vigilance remains. The ideological basis of the Sino-Soviet split is thus avoided. Heavy industry remains the centrepiece of the Soviet industrial strategy and the costly, erroneous experiments of the Khrushchev era are likely to never occur. The seeds of capitalist restoration are not sown as a result and the cold war takes on a more protracted character. Assuming similar rates of economic development, the USSR overtakes the US by the mid 2000s and begins to leave it behind.

  • Max
    link
    61 year ago

    People have given more thoughtful answers but regarding conflicts between the US and soviets that could potentially have lead to WW3, the soviets would had to have been willing to call the US ‘bluff’ on nuclear brinksmanship. And I’m not entirely sure that doing so wouldn’t have resulted in all-out nuclear war.