Comments by "Jiri Slavicek" (@jirislavicek9954) on "Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after World War 2?" video.

@Kairox2003 Yeah right! You can tell that fairytale to someone naive in the US, not me. I lived in communist Czechoslovakia so I know how the daily life was. 40 years of communism turned our country from one of most developed countries in Europe into very outdated, with massive economic and environmental damages and with people demoralised. And we were still like a paradise compared to Russia! Speaking of the US exploiting Peruvian lithium (I don't always agree with US policies) , it was the Soviet Union who was exploiting deposits of Czech uranium, a strategic comodity for Stalin. Getting it almost for free, using political prisoners labour camps for it's mining in 1950s and leaving massive environmental damage. Soviet Union was the main force behind installing a communist regime, sending funds and consultants, ignoring the outcome of elections. It wouldn't happen without the Czech support, it's our own fault too, fair to say. It was the USSR (and the Warsaw pact minus Romania) who invaded us in 1968 and who's army was stinking here "temporarily" till 1990! Some social policies were already in place in times of the Austro Hungarian empire and they were further expanded in the first republic (1918 - 1935), factory owners were building affordable housing for their workers, labour laws were improving. That happened in all European countries, you don't need communist tyranny to achive that. That's definitely not a Soviet invention, Labour party has a long history in Britain, and other countries. And yes, I know all about the communist elections, you could vote either for a communist candidate or a communist candidate 🙈. What a choice! Why bother to vote at all?
2
And they tried in Afghanistan but got a slap
2
Yes, Germany was evil nazi imperialist coutry. But they got a hard slap and learned from it. Since then they behave. Soviets / Russians never learned anything. They don't conquer because they don't have the power to do it.
2
@daniels0376 Very well said. Unfortunately history went on a different path. Winston Churchill and some US politicians were in favour of striking the USSR immediately after the end of WWII and thus ending communism once for ever. But the was a little appetite for more fighting after the most devastating war yet. Stalin knew this, that's why fast development of nuclear arsenal was his top priority. Cold war actually started even before WWII ended, although the USSR and the West were fighting the same enemy, it was done in atmosphere of great mutual mistrust. It is interesting to think what would happen and how today's world would look if such attack happened. Communism would never become so wide spread and devastating. There would be surely a strong opposition from inside against a new war and also the functionality and stability of the new unipolar world is to be taken in question. Also communism is an ideology that cannot be crushed by force only and will always sprout out again like we can see today in California, England, Sweden and many other countries.
1
@daniels0376 Yes, I am not advocating for such solution but it surely was a possible scenario in the past. The allies had to join forces with the USSR otherwise they wouldn't be able to break Germany, but ideologically German nazism and Soviet communism was like two faces of the same coin (national vs. international socialism). Pact Ribentropp - Molotov (that Hitler later violated) was indicating ideological closesness. Beating one with a help of the other was a Pyrhic victory, at least for us in Eastern Europe.
1
@daniels0376 Tsar bomba was betonated in 1961, long after WWII and formation of the Eastern block. It was designed to impress and wreak havoc, basically boys in Moscow and Washington were measuring their equipments, who has a bigger one 🤣 The bomb weighted 27 metric tons and only the heaviest bomber was able to deliver it. Such plane would be easily shot down in case of a conflict which made it pretty useless from the tactical point of view.
1
@Kairox2003 Thank God the world gave us Reagan and Gorbachev, who were the main leaders responsible for the collapse of this rotten evil empire. Otherwise the USSR would be still here till today rattling with weapons and it's citizens would live worse than in North Korea. The main goal of communism was never to free workers and make their life better! It was only a tool to consolidate and cetralize power into a handful of elites. This was achieved through indoctrination and propaganda. Communism has the same modus operandi as nazism, islamism, neomarxism etc. Elites paint themselves as above the law saviours of the true humankind (workers, the right race, believers, progressives) and pretend to fight against the "oppressor" ( capitalists, Jews, non-believers, conservatists, etc.) without actually helping those "oppressed" groups. Somehow workers in the capitalist evil were always far better off than in the communist heaven 🤣🤣🤣 And Lenin was a German export sent weaken Russian Empire, so it presents less threat to Germany. It had nothing to do with workers.
1
And communist party was very strong in Greece. Mayhem created by Greek communists and subsequent Turkish invasion lead to creation of Northern Cyprus.
1
@cinderellaandstepsisters Yes that's true. But the Communist party was very strong in Greece after the WWII + it was supposed by the Soviets via it's satellites. There was a civil war in Greece between communists and anticommunists. Greece eneded up with a rule of a military junta till 1974.
1
@butterflies655 No, it was not.
1
1. The cost - puppet state costs only fraction to what a proper annexed republic would. Controlling local leaders vs. keeping costly garrison, secret police apparatus. Effects are similar, country still can be exploited in most ways. 2. Smaller risk of rebellion, sense of self governance and sovereignty. People blame local politicians for failures, not Moscow. 3. Dilution of Russian power - politicians from annexed countries would have to be represented in Moscow and might bring "dangerous " ideas. General population and army would be diluted, Russians would become a minority. 4. Creation of buffer zone, protection of heartland. Attack on a satellite is not the same as attack on USSR itself. 5. Overextention, bureaucracy, cost of implementing Soviet policies, language barriers etc. 6. Risk of fragmentation or collapse of the whole union in case of serious unrests. Domino effect could be triggered. 7. More votes in the UN 8. Better image on international political scene. Annexing would be in breach with anti imperialist rhetorics. 9. German Soviet Republic would be step too far .... to mane few.
1