Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shantipole t1_j8dr52d wrote

Reply to comment by quantdave in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia 1963. Afghanistan 1979.

2

quantdave t1_j8ecubh wrote

US: Panama 1903, Mexico 1914 & 1916, Haiti 1915, Dominican Republic 1916, Russia(!) 1918, Nicaragua 1926, Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 1965, Dominican Republic 1965, Cambodia 1970, Laos 1971, Lebanon 1982, Grenada 1983, Iraq 1991, Somalia 1992, Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, not counting selective airstrikes, limited interventions or backing for local proxies or third-party interventions. Were all those countries de facto parts of the US?

Czechoslovakia was 1968, btw.

1

shantipole t1_j8epf0s wrote

Thanks RE the Czechoslovakia date. I looked it up and still managed to type it wrong.

The Monroe Doctrine is absolutely an attempt by the US to be the sole hegemon over the Western Hemisphere. There was any question that this is/was the case? Ditto the "world's policeman"/pax americana that covers the other situations--is anyone seriously disputing that this is a hegemonic situation?

(Whether you think that it's a good situation is a separate question).

However, and this isn't an accusation against you personally, your list is a classic whataboutism. Whether the USSR and now Russia have done some stuff isn't disproven if the USA has done similar stuff. I pointed out unambiguous historical episodes of just post-WW2 USSR invading and/or treating its neighbors as if they were under de facto USSR control (I could have added current events to the list--just the involvement of Belarus and Chechnya in the Ukraine conflict is really good example of my point--but those are too recent to be considered "history"). Can you dispute that those episodes occured or that they show hegemony by the USSR?

1

quantdave t1_j8eu043 wrote

The issue isn't the exercise of hegemony in claimed spheres of influence - both superpowers obviously did that - it's whether such acts make the country subject to such action a "de facto part" of the hegemonic power as you claimed. If they do in the Soviet case but not in the US one, then why?

I wasn't engaging in whataboutery to disprove or minimise any act, merely illustrating that such projection of power does not amount to de facto annexation - unless you believe that in both cases it does, which at least has the virtue of consistency.

1

shantipole t1_j8g7rcx wrote

You dragged the US into the conversation and are now attempting to make a point about the USSR based on what the US has or hasn't done. I'm sorry you can't see it, but that is classic whataboutism.

Not engaging in whataboutism would involve you trying to show how the Hungarian and Czech experiences aren't the USSR treating them as de facto parts of it/mere extensions of Moscow's will. How Poland got away with the "Polish October" in 1956 might be a good place to start. You'll also want to explain away things like overthrowing the Hungarian government that was trying to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact in 1956.

It would also involve addressing how the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't the USSR trying to expand its borders (the second part of my point). You might also want to take a detour to discuss if Imperial and post-USSR Russian grand strategy was actually different from USSR grand strategy, or whether it's consistently been a policy of Russian imperialism.

1

quantdave t1_j8h7l4r wrote

You were the one making the initial assertion: to apply it to one side but not the other is just double standards.

Had Hungary and Czechoslovakia been de facto parts of the USSR, 1956 and 1968 would never have arisen: that Moscow was reduced to sending in its tanks underlines the limitations of its political fiat. It's for you to explain how Poland got away with its different course: had your claim been valid, that couldn't have happened.

It's also for you to support the claim that in Afghanistan the USSR was "trying to expand its borders". Afghanistan was the last thing Moscow wanted in its territory: it hadn't wanted to go in at all, and only the prospect of a deeply hostile regime on its central Asian border drew it in.

Yours seems a rather absolutist two-dimensional take: intervention = de facto annexation. I invite you again to consider whether this applies to US military actions, and if not, why not?

1

shantipole t1_j8i7n6p wrote

Good luck with the living under a bridge and demanding tolls. Watch out for goats.

1

quantdave t1_j8j8aak wrote

So you've nothing coherent to add. Oh well.

1