Should the Eastern states of Europe have been incorporated into the USSR?

The produce of the countries would of been useful and since you were ’ advancing the course of the workers’ this would be ligitimate and maybe of the incorporation, the union could of lasted longer. Could this had happened? There would be no rowdy dictators wanting independent control thus causing less trouble and no velvet revolutions.

I have a mess of responses, but on reflection, the question is so asinine, all I’m going to say it - thanks for playing, take some of our parting gifts, and have a nice day.



No, No and HELL NO!

I’m assuming that the OP is from the perspective of advancing Soviet style socialism, and what might have made it more effective.

Stalin turned Eastern Europe into vassel states after WWII, with Soviet style socialist governments reporting to him and his successors. They were arguably more autonomous than say, Georgia or the Ukraine, which were Soviet Socialist Republics and directly part of the U.S.S.R. along with Russia and the rougly dozen other members.

In practice, my reading seems to indicate that there wasn’t much of a difference. All of these areas had some nationalistic tendencies, which the Soviets repressed as completely as they could until all the Stalinists had died off.

The primary internal justification that the Soviets made for keeping these vassel states was to have a buffer zone so that if something like Nazism were to come after Russia (and communists) again, they would have some warning and other people fighting for them first. Remember, upwards of 20 million Soviet people/subjects died in WWII, this was an event for them that was on the scale of the Holocaust for the Jews. While this is not to discount the ideology of the true believes in imperialistic socialism taking over the world (historical inevitability and all that rot), the cautious nature of the Russian bear was really the overwhelming decisive factor: it trumped the socialsim stuff every time there was a conflict, and quite easily. Sometimes foreign policy depends on a number of interrelated factors that need to be balanced (like what the heck the U.S. policy should be regarding the Palestinian question). But when survival is such a dominant value, it makes things a bit easier.

:confused: I didn’t get it :confused:

I’m for anything which prevents a peaceful transition to democracy a la the “Velvet Revolutions.” Give me a brutal totalitarian / Communist dictator anytime.

At the risk of being MOTO (master of the obvious), would anyone with any historical perspective or passing familiarity with Soviet* style Communism defend it? Ferchrisakes, Gorbachev finally realized that the system was corrupt, immoral, and doomed to failure.

Komsomol proves the adage that “you can fool some of the people all of the time.”

*or Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese, East German, Polish, Cuban… I know, I know “Real Communism has never been tried yet…blah…blah…”

Bad idea. The Soviets had enough problems dealing with the nationalities they already had. To have actually taken over Eastern Europe would have made the people feel more occupied and repressed than they did, where there was at least some bit of national independence.

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia anyone?

Actually the USSR had enough dissention among it’s own ‘nationalities’. I don’t think they could have handled a situation where ethnic Russians would have been perhaps only a third of the Soviet population. Despite all the claims of ‘internationalism’, the old USSR was essentially a Russian empire. The linguistic policy of the USSR alone betrays this.

Also by incorporating central Europeans, there would have been a huge population of ‘western’ educated, nationally oriented, ‘bourgeoise’; types - especially in Hungary and the Czech Republic area, to deal with. I think the Soviet Union had to recognize that these areas could at best be under the military control of the USSR but not really easily incorporated. While the USSR did supress the more overt revolts, they had to put up with “Goulash Communism” (some free enterprise and market trade) to avoid a permanent open conflict.

I had a friend, a Ukrainian former citizen of the USSR, who told me that as a young man he got to travel to Prague and Budapest in the 1970’s. For him, even though it was ‘eastern bloc’ it was still culturally a voyage into Western Europe. I think the real divide in Europe is not the old “Iron Curtain” but the much older Catholic-Protestant/ Orthodox divide which has reemerged after the fall of Communism. I don’t think even the USSR could have breached that divide easily.

Yeah, but they were part of the Russian Empire before the revolution, so there was at least some justification for their annexation. Even so, the Baltics were notoriously anti-Soviet.

To anyone complaining about the sorry state of education in the USA I would suggest you read the OP which I presume was written by someone who got his “education” in the UK. (They speak English there?)

I don’t think that any of the people in these countries wanted to be part of the Soviet Union. I suspect that most of these people didn’t want to be Communists either. As proof of this look at the all the people that defected whenever they had the chance. They built the Berlin Wall to keep people from escaping not to keep people out.

Look at the troubles that Russia has had with their nationalities. Everyone that was an an autonomous Republic left. The Baltic Countries, the Central Asian Republics, and look at the Chechens.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. The annexation of Eastern Europe would have been an outright conquest of those people and hardly a benefit for them.

If this was a Pit thread (and I believe it will be, soon), I would have started my reply with “Hey Fuckbucket” or somesuch. But, since this is GD, after all, where I am supposed to have some standards, I will start thusly:
Young Man,
your obvious interst in our countries (and I believe I can speak for the majority of Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Croatians, etc.) is uplifting. On the other hand, maybe you could, and should be preoccupied with your own, instead of suggesting such brilliant solutions to us. There is an old Hungarian proverb: “It is easy to beat the nettles with somebody else’s dick” - indeed, your enthusiasm to experiment with us reminds me of this in a very obvious way… But let’s return to your Most Intellectual Question:
-indeed, why didn’t we want to join such a glorious Republic? Why, just four years before the communist coup, the gentle and loving army of the SU showed us so many new things, and taught us so many new Russian words:
-Malenkij Robot (“Small Work”) means five or ten or more years of a job opportunity in the most scenic parts of the SU - Siberia, especially. Why, my grandparents were overflowing with joy while they were enjoying the hospitality of Comrade Stalin in Orsk. It also made them very happy, that the hospitality included barbed wires and soldiers with machineguns, in case they were too modest and decided to not abuse suh an opportunity! Oh, and they were taken good care of - they still lived much better than the ordinary Russians!
-“Csasi” (sp?) means “Watch”, something the Russians loved to collect. Why, they could kill for one (or two, or three, or six)!
-“Kartoshku” means potatoes, which meant that the selected lucky woman (ages six to sixty) was allowed to peel potatoes for the Soviet Liberator Heroes. The Soviet Liberator Heroes also entertained them, often twenty or thirty of them on the same evening! Not even nuns were exempt, but they were even torn apart by horses or killed afterwards! Oh, so much wacky fun!

And, of course, let us not forget Soviet charity: instead of the Evil Capitalistic Marshall Plan (which our Glorious Friends forbade us to join), we got the Molotov Aid. Molotov Aid means that you can buy your own factories back from the Soviet Union. You have to pay in dollars, because, err, I don’t know why, but it must have been good for us, because the Soviets are so benevolent!

I could go on. I still don’t understand why we didn’t join, but all I can say is: Proletariats of the World, Vereinigt Euch!

PS: If you are under 15, you should check out “The Black Book of Communism”. It is not that heavy on nice pictures, but it is worth the read and a real eye-opener for a young, enthusiastic bolshevik.
PPS: If you are a troll, please go away.

>> If this was a Pit thread (and I believe it will be, soon),

At first I said the OP sounded young and to go easy on him but after his deluge of threads on one single topic and with zero intellectual rigor or substance I have to say the pit is where hios threads should be in the first place.

I can’t wait to see a debate in the pit between Komsomol and december. I just can’t wait.

To the OP, the answer is: of course not. Why on earth would you think it’s a good idea??? I suggest the Young Communists’ Society has been filling your head with nonsense and propaganda.

I cannot understand a word of your first post. I’ve edited for you it to fix the grammar, punctuation, etc.:

However, I still can’t understand a word of it.

I may have been a bit too hard on the guy. Maybe he is still that young and gullible?

Anyway, the reasons, as other already pointed out, are manyfold:
-there is a significant difference between “Central” and “Eastern” Europe (or, if you will, the more western religion -vs- orthodoxy), and the two don’t neccessarily go well together. There was a lot of animosity in the Baltic states (one of my friends was there a few years ago, and you could almost touch the bad blood between Russians and Latvians. Or we can take Serbia and Croatia as well. There is a good reason that particular state didn’t last long (60-70 years isn’t a lot in history).
-as much as commies are denying it, human beings aren’t rational automatons. Sure, automatons are so sexy and perfect looking (hence the parades and shiny uniforms - hey, SS or NKVD looked really hip and sharp in them)… In the so called “Real World” (which doesn’t seem to hinder lunatics and self-appointed messiahs at all), each and every one of us has quirks, desires and preferences (some of us worship ancient Babylonian gods while listening to music backwards, others worship horrible monsters whose hands were red with blood, and there are those who worship cars, or Britney Spears or Lunix penguins or Gary Gygax. We always resist attempts at homogenization (which is presumed in communism (also presumed in classic economics, but that is beside the point)). We are more comfortable in our own little worlds (or countries) than under the umbrella of a Benevolent Benefactor for our Benefits. National culture is one of these little things, and I am not giving it up for some obscure happy future (which is always “Pretty soon”, or “Just around the corner”). Neither do others - the Blatic states seem to enjoy their independence, as irrational as this may sound to Komrade Komsomol.

But who am I kidding: he is a troll, although an entertaining one…

Yeesh, to add the mess that was Yugoslavia onto the pile of tension that was the USSR is a recipe for disaster.

I’ve been studying the history of the Balkan states…my god, what a mess. To have to deal with just that area alone caused many people to get killed.