What are your thoughts on the Soviet-Afghan war and was the USSR in the wrong?...

Ryder Russell
Ryder Russell

What are your thoughts on the Soviet-Afghan war and was the USSR in the wrong?

Also recommend good reading material on the subject if you know any.

Attached: MC-150904-feat.jpg (627.65 KB, 1330x884)

Other urls found in this thread:

counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
rbth.com/international/2016/08/18/5-soviet-infrastructure-projects-that-survived-the-afghan-wars_622105

Jason Wilson
Jason Wilson

The Afghan government had repeatedly requested that the USSR send troops, including a phone transcript wherein Taraki (leader of the Saur Revolution) practically begs Kosygin to send them.

When Taraki was overthrown and killed by Amin, the latter still allowed for the government to request Soviet intervention, but at the same time Amin wanted to cut a deal with the US and the Mujahideen, and was massacring rival members of the PDPA and weakening the government through his arbitrary acts.

The Soviets kept refusing to send troops, but two things changed their mind:

1. "[The KGB] had in their possession the transcript of a party meeting from 1977 in which colleagues accused [Amin] of links with the CIA while he was studying in New York. Amin did not deny it but said he was only stringing the CIA along because he needed money. Andropov passed this evidence on to the Politburo, the main Soviet decision-making body." (Steele, Ghosts of Afghanistan, 2011, p. 77.)

2. The Soviets picked up that the US was sending aid to the Mujahideen. Years later Brzezinski confirmed this: counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

Meanwhile, "[Amin] had already confided to Selig Harrison (and no doubt others) that he knew how to 'use' the Russians. . . Taraki had already asked the Russians for help. In fact, when Amin made the request that was granted it was the 15th of such requests, four of which he made personally with mounting urgency. . . . is there any reason why Amin should have believed that if Moscow had refused help in June to its trusted friend, Taraki, it would grant him that help in December, though he must have known, or more than suspected by then, that the Soviets had not bought his version of events that led to Taraki's death? But there was also reason, with the Revolutionary Council pressing him to take a chance. And even if the request for aid was granted by the Soviets—and first contingents arrived in Kabul as early as December 8—it would be he, Amin, who would decide how this aid was to be used—certainly not against him." (Philip Bonosky, Afghanistan: Washington's Secret War, 2001, p. 54.)

Contrary to Amin's expectations, the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan, executed him, opened the prisons to release a great many PDPA members who were slated to be executed, and brought Babrak Karmal (the main founder of the PDPA) back from abroad where he had stayed to avoid being killed in Amin's purges.

It really wasn't an invasion. The USSR was responding to Afghan government requests to send troops.

What kind of relationship did the Afghans have with the Soviets?

Can you elaborate?

As for the article:

"The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia."

THE FACTS: His assertion that the Soviets were experiencing a terrorist influx from Afghanistan is out of step with history.

Yeah this is just Trump pretending to know everything about a subject, so he makes stuff up. The Soviets themselves never claimed that "terrorists" had gone into Soviet territory. However, it *was* a concern of the KGB that if the Afghan government were overthrown it'd allow the CIA to promote subversion in Central Asia.

The article then states that the US opposed the Soviet intervention, was afraid of Soviet designs on the Gulf, etc., but this is all incredibly hypocritical given the aforementioned Brzezinski revelations:

Asher White
Asher White

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Alexander Wilson
Alexander Wilson

I copied this from /marx/ btw

James Clark
James Clark

The Afghani Maoists were the only good faction and they got crushed between the social imperialist forces on the govt/Soviet side and the Islamist side, I hope they recover and put the country on the right path after the US withdraws

Nathaniel Ortiz
Nathaniel Ortiz

"The Afghani Maoists were the only good faction"
When you actively work against the established socialist governance and the USSR's attempts to defend it against reactionary forces and internal revisionists, but its ok cause the countries collapse into a theocratic shithole BTFO the "social imperialists"

Attached: 35bcd228d5be2f7ffa728e55e0ca9858c0f083dea918104a11182fa17bb8dc5a.jpg (149.45 KB, 600x709)

Nathaniel Lopez
Nathaniel Lopez

What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Seriously fuck him
"What's more important to history" more like what's more important to US imperialism.

Jason Foster
Jason Foster

They got their asses beat by a bunch of barefoot goat fuckers and a handful of Stimger missles from the CIA. They don’t call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for nothing.
They weren’t wrong for invading, just wrong for doing it in the most imperialist basic bitch way.

Isaiah James
Isaiah James

They got their asses beat by a bunch of barefoot goat fuckers

Same can be said about current American invasion. You have to just look at the map of taleban controlled territory in Afghanistan.

Evan Ortiz
Evan Ortiz

This tbh. They should have known after Vietnam, Ireland, the French in Algeria, and their own partisans in WW2 how deadly a determined insurgency could be, especially when supplied by a Great Power. The relative success of the Afghan government after the Soviet withdrawal also shows that the war could have been one without Soviet ground troops. First off, they should have put Central Asians and Soviet Muslims in charge of this whole operation (or at least relied heavily on their advice), since they were more likely to understand the mentality of the Afghan people. They should have pressed the Afghan government to not be so aggressive in its reforms, and remember that Marxism tells us that socialism cannot simply be applied where conditions are not right for it. Their direct involvement should have been limited to massive economic aid, special forces, and air strikes.

Ian Turner
Ian Turner

remember that Marxism tells us that socialism cannot simply be applied where conditions are not right for it.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but aren't you implying that accelerationism is the only good praxis here?

Cooper Parker
Cooper Parker

No, I’m saying that you can’t expect to take a tribal basically pre-feudal society like Afghanistan and expect that modern post-enlightenment values and modes of governance will take root without resistance, even from the people who would benefit from them. Socialism and its values was entirely alien to 99% of Afghans, so as based as the government was for instituting reforms like gender equality, they were massively overshooting the consciousness of the Afghan people. That spurred widespread resistance, and some of their shittier policies like their botched landed reform didn’t help either.

James Green
James Green

the afghans didnt need communism to begin with. they were already living it.

Levi Thompson
Levi Thompson

It was good because burgerstan now has to deal with a problem they created. Also the war was another reason why the USSR collapsed since they drained resources in a war that wasn't going anywhere. So it fucked everyone.

Oliver King
Oliver King

What are your thoughts on the Soviet-Afghan war and was the USSR in the wrong?
Brezhnev was a pussy. He should’ve invaded Pakistan because they were suppling the Taliban, if he invaded Pakistan he would’ve won the war in Afghanistan.
But then he’d lose a bigger war in Pakistan
Give Pakistan to the Indians, they’ve been after it for years. And they were also pro-USSR.

Isaiah Brooks
Isaiah Brooks

the afghans didnt need communism to begin with. they were already living it.
Random tribes are communism
Pol-potists can go

Grayson Torres
Grayson Torres

They could be called communes, can't they? Self-sufficient, good social bonds, etc. Their way of life is the end goal since common ownership can only exist when the people know each other well enough to do it.

Jackson Perry
Jackson Perry

shithole communism that is

Jason Mitchell
Jason Mitchell

"its not imperialism when *we* do it"
t. stalin

Matthew Perry
Matthew Perry

USSR PROTECTION GANG HAS ARRIVED

Is something similar to the Warsaw Pact the only way to guarantee the existence of socialism?

Obviously there is no Warsaw Pact equivalent today, yet China, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam and Laos continue to persevere. But Europe was different for two reasons:

1. The Warsaw Pact was created as a counter to NATO and to the threat of a remilitarized West Germany. Its main purpose was defense against external invasion.

2. The Eastern European socialist countries obviously had much in common as well as (with the exception of Yugoslavia and Albania) common histories of coming to power thanks to liberation by the Red Army and its subsequent ability to protect the transition from capitalism to socialism from the threat of counter-revolutionary revolts.

So the restoration of capitalism in Hungary or Czechoslovakia was both a threat to neighboring socialist countries as well as a military threat to the Soviet Union via the possible expansion of NATO and invasion by West Germany.

were these interventions ever useful and didn't just produce alienation for the citizens of those countries?

Well they clearly prevented capitalist restoration in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Hungarian party, to my knowledge, was easily able to convince people that it was Rákosi's inept policies which had been responsible for the counter-revolutionary uprising, and Kádár was able to regain the approval of the people during the late 50s and 60s through raising living standards and adopting a more open cultural climate.

This wasn't the case in Czechoslovakia, where the "normalization" following the Warsaw Pact intervention was seen as more keeping things the way they were, rather than substantially improving the way things were.

There were of course students and workers who felt they were struggling to strengthen socialism, but the actual armed revolt was in the hands of counter-revolutionaries who tore down socialist imagery, killed communists and carried out pogroms.

In the case of Czechoslovakia, "socialism with a human face" was going the same way as Gorbachev's "humane and democratic socialism" twenty years later: the degeneration of Marxism-Leninism into social-democracy. Dubček himself by the end of the 80s praised Sweden as an example of socialism, and presided over the Czechoslovak state after the restoration of capitalism. His chief economic advisor, Ota Šik, became an anti-communist and supporter of capitalism even before then. Gorby and his advisers have acknowledged their own indebtedness to Dubček and Co.

The Warsaw Pact was founded to defend the socialist countries of Europe against NATO. It didn't increase Soviet "control" over these countries except insofar as it helped give a legal basis for military intervention.

Justin Powell
Justin Powell

kys

Justin Gutierrez
Justin Gutierrez

Tis a shithole to the unaccustomed, domesticated man.

Noah Flores
Noah Flores

Self-sufficient
nothing to do with communism
good social bonds
lol no, women were treated like slaves

Charles Edwards
Charles Edwards

Not systematically

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan Howard

The Afghan government had repeatedly requested that the USSR send troops, including a phone transcript wherein Taraki (leader of the Saur Revolution) practically begs Kosygin to send them.

The Afghan government was 12 people who lucked out and won in a coup but were only able to control Kabul. You can't just say the invasion was justified because the government you recognized asked you to invade.

Hindsight is 20/20 but they clearly they should've just let the government fall. Nothing could be worse than what ended up happening to Afghanistan.

Levi Baker
Levi Baker

He should’ve invaded Pakistan

lol, they couldn't even take over Afghanistan, how the hell could they take over Pakistan. Half of it is the same terrain as Afghanistan and the other half is a relatively wealthy nation with a powerful government, strong army, and tremendous amounts of US support.

Jack Clark
Jack Clark

lol, they couldn't even take over Afghanistan
The invasion ook only a week. This succeeded. The problem was the insurgency that the Soviets failed to deal with.

Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson

you're all wrong, he should've invaded Japan

Justin Wood
Justin Wood

All incorrect.
They should have fortified Tanzania in order to have further control of Asia and Africa, along with militarization in Guyana.

Attached: tumblr-p8jofrSWUu1w39xsxo1-500.jpg (43.55 KB, 480x480)

Julian Sanchez
Julian Sanchez

They were invited by the internationally recognized government, and had legitimate national security concerns. Afghanistan was right on their border and a jihadist victory there would have threatened the USSR directly.

Why were the Maoists right in defense of the Poppy growers and fart sniffers? Because they were obligated in defending the non-aggression principal against the soviet roaches. You see, the VIA had this nice private business going on with the pot growers and meth labs among many other drug cartels. They got to give the president his daily fix, so one of their operations extended to Afghanistan. Considering that they do deals with Saudi Arabia this comes as no surprise. The Afghanis were peacefully agitating and blowing up the government because in reality it is rightfully ancapistan for tens of billions of years. Then the subhuman godless Slavs have to come in and ruin the free market of ideas and free exchange. Luckily Talibans god is the CEO Ronald Reagan and he whipped up stingers from the magic at his fingertips through priori reasoning. Through the power of god alone the roaches migrated back to the pits of hell.

Jace Cox
Jace Cox

rbth.com/international/2016/08/18/5-soviet-infrastructure-projects-that-survived-the-afghan-wars_622105
The Vietnam War: (1964–1975)
US losses only
KIA: 58,300+
WIA: 153,300+
Planes lost: 3632
Choppers lost: 5229
Tanks lost: 600+
Afghan-Soviet war: (1979–1989)
Soviet losses only
14,500+ KIA
53,750+ WIA
125 planes lost
300+ Choppers
147 tanks lost
Despite the USSR fighting a CIA-funded, trained and armed group based in Pakistan, and being in a country far larger than Vietnam for the same amount of time, they lost almost NO major battles if any, and had comparatively fewer casualties.
The main issue, was that the USSR acted on a principle of trying to respect the international conventions, such as instructing its pilots to never directly engage aggressive actions of the Pakistani Airforce, and rarely venturing past the Afghan border after the terrorists. They also were trying to rebuild Afghanistan, not just destroy the terrorists. They were close to winning despite the issues, and had Gorbachev not pussied out, they likely would have eradicated the shit-hole fundamentalism gripping Afghanistan. Instead it is now completely in the hands of the Taliban, and only defacto controlled by the US vassal government in power.
Inb4 the Mujaheds are like the NVA. the Mujaheds were artificially created and not popularly supported, the NVA and Viet Cong meanwhile, were people's movements.

Attached: Советский-военнослужащий-в-Афганистане-1980-е..jpg (156.39 KB, 850x1062)

Gabriel Moore
Gabriel Moore

If the Soviets could have won with military force they would have done it much sooner
I already explained this in the last thread, that is a gross over-simplification of the situational differences. The soviets were not attempting to use military force to overwhelm the Mujaheds, they were attempting to suppress counter-revolutionary activity, because the Afghan government lacked the power to do so. The fact that the USSR resisted such activity on its own is partly due to sheer luck alongside hard work. In Vietnam the USA was fighting the people from the start, and the people, even in South Vietnam resisted them. Afghanistan's people largely welcomed the soviet influence. even if they had minor discrepancies, the majority of the Mujaheds were either CIA assets from across the Pakistan border or were rural youth who had not yet had the chance to learn what the Soviet's were doing and instead only heard the agitational horror stories by said Mujaheds. This was assisted by Western news articles about "the evul soviets putting bombs in toys" and "spraying them with poison gas". Even though both were proven untrue, people still claim this.
if the socialist Afghan government had any real chance at survival it wouldn’t have collapsed just three years after the Soviets pulled out
Your argument is literally the same argument that porkies use to claim that Iran or Guatemala or the CNT were failures even though they failed due to circumstantial global things. If the USSR removed all influence from the other Warsaw Pact states (as Gorbachev did in 1990) they would and did collapse too, despite stability because the CIA isn't just going to sit on its ass and let them be, they'll take advantage of it the first chance they get and take to breaking them down by inserting their assets and influencing the youth as they did in reality. The people in general supported the socialist government, but Afghanistan was not a powerful country and it's history of Islamic fundamentalism is very long meanig that it would take long years of enforcement to get things across. Inb4 "oppression" that is the same thing done by Lenin and Stalin during NEP and after. For long, LONG years after the revolution they attempted to keep the people from diverting in ignorance and preventing foreign powers from doing that. Afghanistan did not have a Lenin or Stalin, anyone who could have been one, was killed a while ago.
Afghanistan has been under the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism, which goes against many of the root ideas of Socialism. The reason socialism began to rise in Afghanistan was because people in the cities became educated and thus realized the problems of their society, with soviet support they began to try and change their backwards country, educating the youth. However many rural areas took time to educate, because Afghanistan is MASSIVE and also sparsely populated relative to land-mass. Many older people were against these changes because they were set in their ways. Many youths, impressionable and ignorant fell prey to this religious farce and became opposed to it. Combined with the instability of politics it became an area of interest for the USA. It was not yet an established socialist government and its people had not yet been educated, perfect for creating a false dichotomy in the population.
the government should have been able to stand up to a bunch of illiterate goat herders that made up the Mujahideen.
Except that you're thinking of this from the point of view of logic. Think about /pol/, /leftypol has debunked their shit time and again, however long, but objective arguments are less motivating to ignorant people as compared to loud, simple slogans and ideas, especially those that are familiar. When the USSR first formed the majority of support was FOR the Bolsheviks, HOWEVER to prevent counter-revolution they had to enforce their ideas, because the situation was raw.

William Brown
William Brown

Instability of Afghan politics
Hafizullah Amin carried out massacres of fellow PDPA members (including his predecessor, Taraki, who led the Saur Revolution) and through ultra-left policies was causing the government to rapidly lose control over the country.
As a result of alienating the PDPA, the Afghan people, and the Soviets, Amin began reaching out to the US and the Shah. The Soviets feared he was going the same route as Nimeiri, Sadat and Siad Barre ("socialists" who expelled Soviet personnel from their countries, persecuted communists, and aligned with US imperialism.)
At the same time, Amin was forced to request help from the USSR at the urging of his colleagues. He had no idea whether the Soviets would actually send troops or not (they rejected earlier requests by Taraki), and even if they did Amin figured that Soviet troops could be used to consolidate his power over the country until a time when he could request their withdrawal:
"[Amin] had already confided to [American journalist] Selig Harrison (and no doubt others) that he knew how to 'use' the Russians. . . . it would be he, Amin, who would decide how this aid was to be used—certainly not against him." (Philip Bonosky, Afghanistan: Washington's Secret War, 2001, p. 54.)
At the same time, "[The KGB] had in their possession the transcript of a party meeting from 1977 in which colleagues accused [Amin] of links with the CIA while he was studying in New York. Amin did not deny it but said he was only stringing the CIA along because he needed money. Andropov passed this evidence on to the Politburo, the main Soviet decision-making body." (Steele, Ghosts of Afghanistan, 2011, p. 77.)
So yeah the Soviets had no trust whatsoever of Amin. He was objectively bad as a leader, seemed to be destroying the PDPA (after Amin's execution there was a release of a large number of imprisoned party members slated for execution), was suspected to be a CIA agent, and was in fact relying on the US and the Shah to save him from the prospect of being overthrown.
As a result, Amin was executed. The Soviets decided that Babrak Karmal, the founder of the PDPA, was a good replacement. So he was returned from Prague (where he lived in exile since Amin would have killed him otherwise.) After he was overthrown and the Soviets took control of Kabul all the various religious groups pretty much combined forces and became the Mujahideen who were then backed by the CIA, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia both financially and politically (Americans frequently paraded them as "freedom fighters" standing up to the "evil empire", and only stopped after 9/11 happened). the Mujahideen pretty much declared a holy war against the Soviets and the Afghan government and took control of the country in 1993 which was then followed by more civil war.