Soviet Strength and Weakness Were Objective Realities
Lenin's Tomb, Moscow (Wikimedia)
You can normally count on Bernard Henri-Levy to say something unenlightening and today is no exception:
Let’s summarize. From these three certainties, considered together, arises a clear obligation: aiding and strengthening, with all our might, the Iranian civil society in revolt. We have done it in the past with the USSR. We eventually understood, after decades of cowardice, that totalitarianism, in its eventual state of putrefaction, was only strong from our weakness.
I’m all for supporting Iranian civil society. But let’s get real. The practical assistance that Western governments were ever able to give to anti-Communist dissidents was quite small. Overwhelmingly, the dissidents had to make their own way. And they tried, over and over again for a period of decades. But in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and China in 1989 they were crushed by force. In Eastern Europe in 1989, it’s not as if “we” prevented that from happening again. In most countries, the authorities relented. Mikhael Gorbachev chose not to deploy Soviet forces. In Romania, elements within the security services mounted a coup against the incumbent regime. And in all cases, the Communist economies were what they were. Compared to Western economies, they were weak. Compared to or African or Central American economies, they were strong. In no case was “our weakness” a major factor in their strength or weakness. This whole line of thinking is an enormous insult to the people who actually put themselves on the line for freedom, oddly under the guise of respect for those who are doing so now.
23 Responses to “Soviet Strength and Weakness Were Objective Realities”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I thought totalitarianism was strong because of its hundreds of divisions and thousands of nuclear weapons. I guess I just don’t understand foreign policy.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“In no case was “our weakness” a major factor in their strength or weakness.”
I think there’s something a bit silly about thinking that if the U.S. presented an economically, military, politically and diplomatically weak face to the Soviets in the 80s that it would have had absolutely no effect on what political and policy options they were and were not willing to consider.
Mike
June 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Well, we did conspire with Saudi Arabia to keep the price of oil low, which helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Plus, we helped to make life more difficult for them in Afghanistan. Other than that, I can’t think of anything we did that mattered much, outside the fevered imaginings of a few neocons.
I also don’t see what the relevance is wrt Iran.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Strength” and “weakness” in Henri-Levy’s usage are just terms of valorization and de-valorization. If he likes it, it’s “strong.” If he doesn’t … well, you get the picture.
Talking with the Soviets was “weak” until Thatcher dragged Reagan to talk to Gorby. Now it’s called “winning the Cold War.”
That’s “strong,” right?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Or we use the means at our disposal–more numerous than we think–in view of a diplomatically isolated country, in view of a regime whose neighbors more or less secretly wish for its downfall, in view of a battered economy incapable of even refining its own oil.
There must be a glitch on the TNR site; I don’t see the second half of the column in which Henri-Levy explains what those numerous means are.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
It’s all about us!
The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics lives on.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“This whole line of thinking is an enormous insult to the people who actually put themselves on the line for freedom, oddly under the guise of respect for those who are doing so now.”
Actually Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said he changed his mind about the Helsinki accords which were about human rights.
Back then he was dismissive but the “people who put themselves on the line” who Matt supposedly is looking out for, have told Gates that it was those accords which they could hold up to their own govenrments and point to which really helped them. And he believes them.
But for many anti-war people if you criticize the Soviet Union or Iraq or Iran, it means you want to bomb the living shit out of them.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
But for many anti-war people if you criticize the Soviet Union or Iraq or Iran, it means you want to bomb the living shit out of them.
Because what, we haven’t criticized Iran enough already? If Iranian dissidents want an official U.S. denunciation of their regime, they have plenty to choose from.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“I think there’s something a bit silly about thinking that if the U.S. presented an economically, military, politically and diplomatically weak face to the Soviets in the 80s that it would have had absolutely no effect on what political and policy options they were and were not willing to consider.”
Perhaps, but it’s about one one-hundredth as silly as the entire American conservative movement convincing itself that the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet bloc were a moderate increase in US defense spending and a couple of memorable speeches by President Reagan.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I think there’s something a bit silly about thinking that if the U.S. presented an economically, military, politically and diplomatically weak face to the Soviets in the 80s that it would have had absolutely no effect on what political and policy options they were and were not willing to consider.
You’re right, that’s very silly. Tell us who believes it, so we can all point and laugh at them. Someone other than the voices in your head, of course.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thank you so much for calling Levy on his typical nonsense. He and the rest of his ‘new philosophe’ brethren have been the subject of ridicule in serious intellectual circles in France since they first appeared in the 1970s. But they’ve always been able to infiltrate more popular media nonetheless, both in France and how here. It’s nice to see a bit of push back against the idea that this guy is anything other than a self-aggrandizing hack.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Great post Matt.
Quote of the day:
You can normally count on Bernard Henri-Levy to say something unenlightening
June 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“You’re right, that’s very silly. Tell us who believes it, so we can all point and laugh at them. Someone other than the voices in your head, of course.”
Well, gee, you might want to talk to some of those liberals who loudly bitched about stuff like putting U.S. missiles in Europe to start.
Mike
June 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Watch as the Libertarian-Fascist Yahoos write in to express outrage that Mr. Yglesias suggested that the Soviet economy was healthier than that of some African countries.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
MBunge,
Your hero, the late and unlamented Ronald Reagan, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans. If you still think he was a fine fellow, then you are cordially invited to go engage in carnal relations with a pig.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Well, gee, you might want to talk to some of those liberals who loudly bitched about stuff like putting U.S. missiles in Europe to start.
Err, the Pershings didn’t accomplish anything other than nearly sending the Sovs over the deep end during Able Archer.
They were bankrupted by trying to match Trident and the F-16 and the Abrams (which, for the first time, was an American, and thus mass-produced – tank that could at least hold its own against the T-72).
And, frankly, we nearly bankrupted ourselves in this race, as the last 20 years should have taught us.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
As a philosopher, I’m offended by Bernard Henri-Levy the way a biologist is offended by a creation scientist.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
In his new book “The Rise and Fall of Communism,” Archie Brown stated the Communist regimes have very long lives in the cases of China and North Korea, and the Soviet Union could have proved no exception if it was not for the reforms of Gorbachev. Morvover unlike these Communist regimes, Iran does allow a certain amount of political parties and is not a one party system, and therefore one really should not be making comparisons between the current sitiuation in Iran and Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Finally one could speculate that the Iranian hardliners could have got away with this election fraud if they were a bit more discreet and made the election closer. If the Iranian regime does collaspse it will only be because of the political stupidity of the hardliners in giving the current Iranian president such a big and impossible lead over his opponent and not some Hegelian march of democracy.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
My impression is that the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was a nail in the coffin—we certainly helped the mujaheddin prevail. Glasnost finished it off. The Soviet Union was too broke to keep itself running and it had betrayed its own ideals.
None of this compares to Iran, except for the fact that Republicans are using it to justify meddling in a sovereign nation’s affairs.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
What annoys me is that they never mention Saudi Arabia. Bernard Henri-Levy is a douche.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:48 am
No BHL thread is complete with linking to the Zidane headbutt essay in the WSJ:
http://www.soccerblog.com/2006/07/bernardhenri-levy.htm
A choice excerpt:
“The man’s insurrection against the saint. A refusal of the halo that had been put on his head and that he then, quite logically, pulverized with a head-butt, as though saying: I am a living being not a fetish; a man of flesh and blood and passion, not this idiotic empty hologram, this guru, this universal psychoanalyst, natural child of Abbé Pierre and Sister Emanuelle, which soccer-mania was trying to turn me into.”
What. The. Fuck.
There were some really funny letters to the editor a few days later. In fact, I am convinced that they printed the essay primarily as a ploy to encourage funny letters to the editor in response. The one time in history that editorial page has ever shown even the slightest sense of humor (which means they’re still one up on those killjoys at the NYT).
Yep, the dude’s a nut. But I have to admit that I still think “Who Killed Daniel Pearl” was a good book.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
It appears that Poptarts is unaware of a rather salient fact: the Helsinki Accords with a treaty signed by the Soviet Union, after extensive negotiations between the US, the USSR, and each sides’ allies.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and Poptarts is actually advocating for greater diplomatic efforts between us and Iran, but I don’t think so. I think he was trying to advocate for unilateral fire-breathing, and scored an own-goal.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
The rest of the world will be very pleased when the Americans learn how to mind their own business.
Hopefully, the upcoming devaluation of the US dollar will make it impossible to continue the current (insane) levels of military spending and the rest of us can sleep peacefully again.
Of course, we in the rest of the world will suffer the disappearance of the US consumer, but I think that’s en equitable deal.