McNamara, defense chief during Vietnam War, dies

[TC Pilot]

Because it is always portable, so long as the main crux remains the dichotomy between workers' interests and those of capital. The Soviet Union chose to repudiate World Revolution as a tactical measure.

That's not a tactical shift. Stalin's orders, when operating under the assumption that World War III was inevitable, that Western and Japanese communists cooperate with the Americans was a tactical measure. Repudiating that idea and abandoning direct, violent military confrontation is far more than that.

Yes, the idea of competing with the West in terms of economies, society, and influence in the Third World certainly still existed, at least until Gorbachev. But you don't seem to grasp how Kruschev's 'peaceful coexistence' is a doctrinal shift from "RAR kill capitalists!" toward "New Thinking," precisely because it abandoned the idea that direct, bloody military conflict would be the solution. No doubt American politicians at the time misunderstood this nuance as much as you seem to.


It couldn't afford to alienate the West so aggressively. Yet Communism, everywhere, presumed that the nature way of things was elimination - murder - of one group by another.[/quote]

[Simon_Jester]

Remember, at that time there were socialists in the US, and they were taken seriously.

I doubt Henry Ford was a socialist. Which socialists are you talking about? The USA deported thousands of socialists in the 1900s, that I know... I also know that the main participants in Soviet-American trade were basically the mega-capitalists of the USA. And one of the prime creditors of the Soviet industrial rise was the US government.

The people making the loans and investments weren't socialists, no. But at that time, the US honestly had a left wing (not a center-right masquerading as a right wing). A lot of people, both in and out of power, saw the Great Depression as evidence that 19th century style liberal democratic capitalism was bankrupt, and that the future would be dominated by other political systems. On the right, that led to fascist leanings; on the left, socialist leanings with a substantial mix of Leninists and Trotskyists.

Such people were on the tips of their respective wings, but they had quite a few sympathizers closer to the center who weren't prepared to go so far. The leftists had more influence in the Roosevelt administration; the rightists in the corporate sector (which is why if you go digging you find a lot of stuff about American companies' relations with the Nazis).

But what I'm getting at is that the prevailing American picture of the USSR in the 1930s wasn't one of "menacing monster" the way it was in the Cold War era. It wasn't just that the USSR didn't seem like an immediate threat; there were a lot of people going to Russia, coming back, and saying "they're onto something good over there." Of course, a far number of those people were 'useful idiots'* who didn't realize that they were being shuttled through Potemkin villages and that they weren't seeing the downside of Soviet industrialization plans, but they were coming back and sincerely saying that the USSR was a pretty good place.

*I know Lenin never used the phrase, but the concept is meaningful even if it's falsely attributed.
______

Socialism didn't really die in the US until the 1950s, at which point anti-communism and anti-Russianism linked up and effectively killed the movement.
______

During the 30s, the USSR actually still proclaimed violent destruction of capitalist nations (even if no longer a "world revolution"), publicly decried their very existence and claimed that near is the day when "communism shall wash away all borders". I don't know what they "thought" of Stalinism, but it was clear from Stalin and his ruling circle's public speeches and doctrine documents that the USSR was not willing to tolerate capitalism. In the 1960s, the public statements rapidly made a 180 degree turn. I don't believe the US leaders or capitalists for that matter couldn't understand the public talk of their own demise.

You grossly overestimate the collective intelligence of the American intelligentsia.

That aside, I think you're on to something in saying that it's about power. But it's also about the exercise of power. Let's be honest; anyone outside the USSR had reason to be alarmed by Soviet behavior in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They had even more cause to be alarmed if (like most people outside the communist nations) they didn't realize that there was a major split between Mao and Stalin and that the China and the USSR were not in the process of forming a single "communist bloc."*

The way in which the postwar Soviet Union exercised its great military power to create a network of vassal states in Eastern Europe and to support communist movements in the 'Third World' created a very serious perception that the Soviets planned to conquer the world one piece at a time. Read George Kennan's 1947 "Long Telegram" if you don't believe me.**

And it is that (largely mistaken) belief that led Americans to groupthink themselves into the idea that they needed to point an overwhelming nuclear threat at the USSR- to answer the superior infiltration techniques of "world communism" with a brute force solution.

And yes, that's gibberish, but it was sincere gibberish. They not only fooled others; they fooled themselves. And they fooled themselves in large part because of very real and very frightening evidence that they didn't know how to interpret... not least because the USSR played its cards very close to its chest, making accurate analysis of their intentions impossible.

*This is not to say that people wouldn't have similar cause for alarm looking at what the US was doing during the same period.

**Here. This should give you an idea of how paranoid serious thinkers on American foreign policy were, and how badly they misunderstood the nature and goals of the Soviet leadership. Kennan is widely regarded as the "father of containment" for a reason. Part 5 is especially informative.

[Axis Kast]

It not only repudiated the World Revolution but moved to peaceful coexistence and claimed that transition to communism might be achieved through peace. That is a radical change of ideology, not some sort of "tactical measure".

A radical change of ideology occasioned by prior realization that the Soviet Union could ill afford to make enemies too numerous, and also one that cuts against the very grain of what it means to be a Communist - to suppose that there is an inevitable struggle between the exploiter and his victim, which will always end in suppression and domination of one group by another, inherently bloody. If you believe some other thing, you are no longer a Communist.

In 1963, Khruschev clarified to a Yugoslav audience that he still anticipated workers' revolution in the West.

"Behaved illogically"? When he agreed that the idea of the gap was false he still pushed for military expansion. That is not illogical. That is intentful militarism. Of course, you may say that this is illogical, but so what? Quite notably, if the question concerned the 1930's remilitarization of Nazi Germany, would you say that there is no ill intent and they were merely acting on the threat assessments which they produced (about being threatened by Britain, France, USSR and god knows by whom else) in good faith? Not misinforming their public? No?

There is a difference between deploying figures that are known to be false for the purpose of misleading the public, and disbelieving intelligence projections, or else believing them, but continuing to believe, also, that the nation could slip back into vulnerability at a sneeze. The article which you cited implies that Symington was convinced only the Soviet Union was ceased to compete as aggressively, not that it had lost the capability to make a new push.

Wohlstetter "influential"? Please. So what? Someone's influence doesn't mean he's not a scumbag, actually. But that aside, Wohlstetter wasn't in Team B. Team B was a specifically assembled team of political hacks who were not in the professional intelligence cirles, presided by an unqualified anti-communist writer. How fucking "qualified" could that be? It's not a matter of mere "disbelief" but clearly of political intent. And I'm not saying it was ill intent for the USSR. The people might have pursued their own goals. Like expansion of the military. It wasn't "evil", it was just... lobbying, corruption. Call it how you want.

Wohlstetter is still read today. He was mandatory reading on deterrence theory at The Johns Hopkins University in 2006. We're talking about him right now. I invite you to prove he was a scumbag, if that is your contention.

What I object to is your continued, unsubstantiated assertions that all of these activities were moved forward by people who really knew that they were pedaling so much shit. You utterly, and inappropriately, ignore the fact that some did not have any confidence in the CIA's reports, which were "helpfully" punctuated by caveats that, however mild, were a naysayer's windfall.

No, retard: I never claimed that.

To your argument that the U.S.S.R. did not aim at the destruction of Western government, then. Really, I see no functional difference. You yourself have already admitted that the Soviet Union was as imperialistic as the United States in its behavior toward the rest of the world.

The U.S.S.R. did certainly aim at the destruction of Western governments. It simply could not compel this destruction militarily, knew as much, and lived with that fact.

Which was fucking irrelevant since Starglider was talking about the STATED OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S.S.R. NOT about "communism as interpreted by it's fathers" or all the fucking useless, irrelevant bullshit you typed in this thread, wasting my time on a pointless fucking sidetrack.

The official policy of the U.S.S.R. can only be understood with reference to Communism as grand theory. One does not read the United States Constitution independent of Republican political theory, either.

You're a lying fuckface. Trying to twist my arguments? No fucking way.

Here's a little thought exercise. If the Soviet Union was trying to topple Western governments, which I allege that it was, if not through direct confrontation, then with what would those governments have been replaced? Other Communist regimes. Expansionism.

[montypython]

Here's a little thought exercise. If the Soviet Union was trying to topple Western governments, which I allege that it was, if not through direct confrontation, then with what would those governments have been replaced? Other Communist regimes. Expansionism.

One could accuse the US and France of doing similar things with their respective revolutions, which monarchists did say and were proven correct in the long run. Just because the shoe was on the other foot doesn't make attacking the Soviets for doing the same for the long term survival of their system more justifiable.

[K. A. Pital]

If you believe some other thing, you are no longer a Communist. ... In 1963, Khruschev clarified to a Yugoslav audience that he still anticipated workers' revolution in the West.

Then the post-war USSR was no longer Communist. Big surprise. Oh well. I thought communism was about nationalization of property. But Axis Kast the grand theorist has more right to defining what it is than the Soviet government which, for a long time, held a monopoly on defining the communist ideology in the limits of Marxism-Leninism. As for a worker's revolution, so what about that? Coexistence stipulated that a revolution is purely the internal matter of other nations.

The article which you cited implies that Symington was convinced only the Soviet Union was ceased to compete as aggressively

Symington's initial justification was found out to be false and he still persisted. I don't know what level of persistence should be indicative of an intent. Do you?

...all of these activities were moved forward by people who really knew that they were pedaling so much shit ... some did not have any confidence in the CIA's reports

Once again, Kast, I never made a claim that all of these activities were moved forward by people who knew they were pedalling shit. I never really found any problem with Wohlstetter either: it's the Team B hacks and their appointment, and the treatment of their bogus "findings" as some sort of "undeniable fact" by politicians, for example, despite clear statements from the intelligence community that unqualified morons can only produce shit; this is what I would consider ill intent. It is the fact that during the first Missile Gap, despite being informed of it's falsehood, some persisted with defending their positions or just downright ignored the implications of the falsehood of Missile Gap; this is what I could consider ill intent. This and other examples of policy by press release.

The misled, mis-informed public in this case, and people without access to classified data were never maligned by me; I have described them as "tools" because they were being misled and mis-informed, and without doubt they could not be blamed for it. However, the instigators of the scares, and those who spoon-fed bullshit to the public from the higher levels of government should be held accountable for it.

I hope this clarification of my position is good enough. As for those who did not have confidence in the CIA reports, I'm quite skeptical that a team of unqualified political hacks (re: Team B) would be in any way more competent than people in the field and intelligence professionals. Which brings us to my initial point - those who pushed forward for non-professional alarmism, including making policy on the basis of articles in pop magazines, fraudlent photos, fraudlent claims by non-professional hacks ARE culpable for it to the fullest extent, since they, with the full access to classified information, considered that picking political hacks or making alarmism out of pop mag articles would be better serving their political interests.

To your argument that the U.S.S.R. did not aim at the destruction of Western government, then. Really, I see no functional difference. You yourself have already admitted that the Soviet Union was as imperialistic as the United States in its behavior toward the rest of the world.

Governments, Kast. The fact that you don't see a functional difference between "official policy stating violent destruction of all Western governments" and "coexistence" is just showing how dumb you are. The talk is about the official policy of a nation. Moreover, I never denied that the USSR was imperialistic in it's behavior. However, that has no relation to Starglider's bullshit (and yours), since being imperialistic does not automatically mean you are actively and officially stating to destroy all other governments in the world; in fact, that is simply preposterous since dozens of Empires pursuing their own goals always existed. Note that the USA's imperialism in Latin America and Middle East was nothing important when it came to destruction of the USSR, and clearly is no evidence that the USA planned it's government's destruction; it's only through direct documents like the NCS 20/1 that we can infer the goals of USA towards the USSR itself. So just shut up with your bullshit.

The official policy of the U.S.S.R. can only be understood with reference to Communism as grand theory. One does not read the United States Constitution independent of Republican political theory, either.

That is false, because communism like I said was a political tool for the government, not vice versa. By that logic, the official foreign policy of modern China can only be understood with reference to Communism as a grand theory. That is false. Neither internal nor foreign policy of modern China requires anything from Marxism-Leninism for understanding; or Maoism for that matter. The concepts of peaceful coexistence which were taken in the post-war, post-Stalin USSR and post-Mao China were critical deviations from the "grand theory of Communism" by which as we already found out you understand only Maoism or Stalinism and refuse to grant any other leaders, governments or theoreticians the right to interpret the policy of Communism. Once again, Kast, bullshit.

If the Soviet Union was trying to topple Western governments, which I allege that it was

You have not proven anything from your statements about the post-war USSR's OFFICIAL STATED POLICY, so your thought exercise is meaningless bullshit.

I want to beat into you that we are talking about the OFFICIAL STATED POLICY of the USSR and that is all. Not it's "ulterior motives", not the "old tenets of Communism", not even whether the USSR wanted in fact to topple other governments or not,but about it's OFFICIAL STATED POLICY.

Until you fucking start discussing that, and not your own extrapolations and thoughts, I'm not going to even look at your points.

[Axis Kast]

Then the post-war USSR was no longer Communist. Big surprise. Oh well. I thought communism was about nationalization of property. But Axis Kast the grand theorist has more right to defining what it is than the Soviet government which, for a long time, held a monopoly on defining the communist ideology in the limits of Marxism-Leninism. As for a worker's revolution, so what about that? Coexistence stipulated that a revolution is purely the internal matter of other nations.

Communism, applied as government practice, always included nationalization and expropriation of private property. This was one reflection of the dialectical imperative of eliminating private capital, was it not?

Like a tailor, the Soviet Union was forced to hem Marxist ideology, yet the client was still wearing the brand.

Revolutions were internal matters only when the Soviet Union couldn't come to the ball game. Else, they were important opportunities for expansion. The Americans, of course, were no less cynical and self-interested in their own actions.

Symington's initial justification was found out to be false and he still persisted. I don't know what level of persistence should be indicative of an intent. Do you?

According to the article that you provided, Symington agreed that the Soviet Union had previously been ahead, but that the gap had narrowed because Moscow pulled the breaks. This suggests that any parity, or American advantage, was apparently dependent upon Soviet self-restraint, rather than the superiority of our defense programs.

The misled, mis-informed public in this case, and people without access to classified data were never maligned by me; I have described them as "tools" because they were being misled and mis-informed, and without doubt they could not be blamed for it. However, the instigators of the scares, and those who spoon-fed bullshit to the public from the higher levels of government should be held accountable for it.

But you have failed to substantiate your position.

Politicians can mistrust the Central Intelligence Agency. Heck, people on this board routinely second-guess the Central Intelligence Agency. Your argument implies that the Central Intelligence Agency has consistently been regarded as the indisputable gold standard for analysis?

Like you, I happen to think that the intelligence community provided the most valid assessments. However, I don't hold my breath thinking that politicians always trust the CIA to give them worthwhile analysis. Politicians cultivate their own sources of intelligence, or grow accustomed to rely on their own perceptions, or those of hand-picked assets. This is unscientific behavior, but perhaps unsurprising: once an individual has "survived" the political dogfight of public election, he or she tends to pack an ego of comparable size to the achievement.

I hope this clarification of my position is good enough. As for those who did not have confidence in the CIA reports, I'm quite skeptical that a team of unqualified political hacks (re: Team B) would be in any way more competent than people in the field and intelligence professionals. Which brings us to my initial point - those who pushed forward for non-professional alarmism, including making policy on the basis of articles in pop magazines, fraudlent photos, fraudlent claims by non-professional hacks ARE culpable for it to the fullest extent, since they, with the full access to classified information, considered that picking political hacks or making alarmism out of pop mag articles would be better serving their political interests.

Many politicians cultivate their knowledge from open-source materials. When they develop issue competency, they are often relying on academic materials that don't reference classified information. Basic coursework on intelligence analysis will emphasize that much of it is culled from the public record.

A quick study of Team B reveals that it was "stacked" with persons who took a very dark view of Soviet intentions and the quality of existing intelligence products. However, the individuals do appear to have had considerable qualification. The "author" you refer to as its chairperson was, in fact, a historian of the Soviet Union. Persons with academic credentials have often been important in the construction of informed policy. See, for example, the effort to block the Ford Administration's forray into Angola. Critical Democrats depended heavily on the testimony provided by persons with deep knowledge of Angola's colonial experience.

Governments, Kast. The fact that you don't see a functional difference between "official policy stating violent destruction of all Western governments" and "coexistence" is just showing how dumb you are.

It's window dressing. Coexistence was a practical necessity. Official policy consists of platitudes. Unless you are discussing nothing more than semantics, my points are perfectly valid.

However, that has no relation to Starglider's bullshit (and yours), since being imperialistic does not automatically mean you are actively and officially stating to destroy all other governments in the world; in fact, that is simply preposterous since dozens of Empires pursuing their own goals always existed. Note that the USA's imperialism in Latin America and Middle East was nothing important when it came to destruction of the USSR, and clearly is no evidence that the USA planned it's government's destruction; it's only through direct documents like the NCS 20/1 that we can infer the goals of USA towards the USSR itself. So just shut up with your bullshit.

The United States Government was indisputably aiming to eliminate the Soviet Union as a political entity. The very core of the Containment policy was an assumption that, if it were unable to expand, the Soviet Union would eventually crumble as the result of popular unrest. All the United States had to do was match the U.S.S.R. play for play in order to overheat the engines.

Imperialism generally means that one aims to destroy something, somewhere, and replace it with something else.

That is false, because communism like I said was a political tool for the government, not vice versa. By that logic, the official foreign policy of modern China can only be understood with reference to Communism as a grand theory. That is false. Neither internal nor foreign policy of modern China requires anything from Marxism-Leninism for understanding; or Maoism for that matter. The concepts of peaceful coexistence which were taken in the post-war, post-Stalin USSR and post-Mao China were critical deviations from the "grand theory of Communism" by which as we already found out you understand only Maoism or Stalinism and refuse to grant any other leaders, governments or theoreticians the right to interpret the policy of Communism. Once again, Kast, bullshit.

To the contrary, one is only prepared to grapple with the modern Chinese system if one has understood Maoism. Deviation, or derivation, do not make history less significant.

You have not proven anything from your statements about the post-war USSR's OFFICIAL STATED POLICY, so your thought exercise is meaningless bullshit.

Are you trying to tell me that your argument is entirely semantical? That you're arguing about platitudes, rather than practice?

[K. A. Pital]

Deviation, or derivation, do not make history less significant.

I take that as a concession that the USSR and China, historically and initially had an official policy of destroying capitalist governments, but later abandoned that. Therefore, this is history. No matter how significant it is. Modern Britain is the same government as the British Empire, without a revolution or break in power, but it's quite different in both theoretic ideology and practice.

All your other statements are basically walking around the same old tune: "But look what views they held in the past!" - well sorry, the ages are changed.

It's window dressing.

Substantiate that. Oh wait, I forgot - you can't. Actually let's play that game. The USA is a malevolent nation which wants to kill everyone on Earth. It's official policy is a tactical smokescreen and window dressing.

Many politicians cultivate their knowledge from open-source materials

Preferring that to the professional intelligence of their own nation? Pardon me if I'll say that this is basically self-serving, like I said before. The politician in question does not care if his "team" of "experts" who are not intelligence professionals (and contrary to your pathetic whine, a historian of the USSR is not a qualified intelligence specialist, much less qualified to preside over an intelligence team) and then treat it as absolute fact, I have all grounds to presume that this is self-serving, and he is doing it fully understanding that he is twisting reality to conform to his political perceptions, or to fulfil his political goals.

It is quite clear that an article in a pop mag with misattributed photos cannot be grounds for a serious discussion in Washington, for example; and it's quite clear that if it is discussed as a "threat" this is politically motivated, corrupt alarmism for the sake of the military industrial complex.

End of story. If you're cutting your politicos more slack for "surviving the political darwinism" or something like that, I guess Stalin should be cut a lot of slack for surviving the political struggle in the 1930s. After all that impacted him heavily and made him paranoic, so his reactions were not malignant, no-no-no! He was just a poor victim of his own twisted perception. When you speak, Kast, I get the feeling that you will go any depths to find an explanation for politics' actions, which does not include malice or lie, even in cases where it's clear that a person without a prior intent would hardly do anything like that.

So I'm finishing this topic with a simple statement: if it was not malice, then it was incompetence, lobbyism, corruption and greed of the industrialists which pushed it forward. Personally, I think this is enough grounds to consider the people doing it culpable for at least neglience. If a spy reports incorrect data and it leads to say war, he might get on trial and be shot later. If a politician spoon feeds the people a lie, he does not face anything. But he gets, even many years onward, a bunch of lapdog apologists like you Kast, who think that anything which is not malicious in intent deserves no castigation. Here's the deal: it does. Non-malicious and neglient murder deserves trial. Unintended consequences deserve accusation.

[Axis Kast]

I take that as a concession that the USSR and China, historically and initially had an official policy of destroying capitalist governments, but later abandoned that.

The U.S.S.R. and the P.R.C. had the same problem: without publicly repudiating the very essence of the ideology on which they had been founded, they could not have credibly stood in front of the community of world opinion and insisted that they were essentially pacific nations. Khruschev announced the shift essentially to try and "calm" the United States.

This practice of contextually imposed self-restraint did not actually apply when the Soviet Union imagined that it could get away with tampering (see: Afghanistan), and was anyway antithetical to Communism itself, which continued to be understood in the "old" fashion. Thus, Khruschev travelled to Yugoslavia long after the onset of "peaceful coexistence" and explained that workers' revolutions were still to be expected.

Preferring that to the professional intelligence of their own nation?

Writes Mark M. Lowenthal, whose textbook is commonly used to instruct graduate students on intelligence analysis and the intelligence "process:" "Even during the height of the cold war, according to one senior intelligence official, at least 20 percent of the intelligence about the Soviet Union came from open sources." This excludes the basic knowledge that is necessary to competently apply intelligence about specific issues.

The politician in question does not care if his "team" of "experts" who are not intelligence professionals (and contrary to your pathetic whine, a historian of the USSR is not a qualified intelligence specialist, much less qualified to preside over an intelligence team) and then treat it as absolute fact, I have all grounds to presume that this is self-serving, and he is doing it fully understanding that he is twisting reality to conform to his political perceptions, or to fulfil his political goals.

Answer me this. What are the qualifications for "intelligence specialists?" When the CIA decides to hire new analysts, where does it often turn? What kind of person will know best what to do with secret or top-secret information? The answer is almost always somebody that has had formal academic training, if the subject is a country; or somebody with military experience, including experience of the war colleges system, if the subject is the armed forces; or somebody with a technical background, if it is science and technology-related.

You have grounds to consider "Team B" an exercise in self-serving politics, but not categorical evidence that it was staffed with hacks who had no place making judgments about Soviet strategic culture.

End of story. If you're cutting your politicos more slack for "surviving the political darwinism" or something like that, I guess Stalin should be cut a lot of slack for surviving the political struggle in the 1930s. After all that impacted him heavily and made him paranoic, so his reactions were not malignant, no-no-no! He was just a poor victim of his own twisted perception.

Kindly do try to pay attention. It would prevent you from making this ridiculous errors in judgment. The point is not to "cut" anybody "slack," but to explain how, quite without lying through their teeth, politicians may come to incredible conclusions. It's the nature of the American system of politics.

[K. A. Pital]

Thus, Khruschev travelled to Yugoslavia long after the onset of "peaceful coexistence" and explained that workers' revolutions were still to be expected.

That is not a malignant statement. If Khrushev said that he still expects the USSR to destroy Western governments, you'd have a point. Revolutions occuring out of the "people's will" are not evidence of a stated or even implied intent of destruction.

Even his famous "bury you" comment came in context of internal revolutions in those nations. Khrushev said that the worker class of the Western nations will once come to power and proclaim socialism.

That is quite different from "the USSR will destroy you", so sorry.

And you should note that the socialist governments which were created by internal revolutions (PRC, Vietnam, Cuba) outlived the USSR whereas the nations where the USSR in Stalin's time installed it's sphere of influence forcibly (E. Europe) did not.

So there is a difference in policy. And a very large one, which you fail to note - support of socialism in another nation is not support of the destruction of said nation or it's government, neither a revocation of it's sovereignity. That was the crux of "peaceful coexistence", so the claim that the USSR wanted to destroy the Western governments, much less "officially pursue" such a policy is bullshit. The USSR would look favourably on their populations having own revolutions, but that is not the USSR destroying them but their own people.

The U.S.S.R. and the P.R.C. had the same problem: without publicly repudiating the very essence of the ideology on which they had been founded, they could not have credibly stood in front of the community of world opinion

Neither nation publicly repudiate it's essential ideology. The PRC is credible and so was the USSR. You're just bullshiting. By the way, which "international community"? During the Cold War, the Second and Third World comprised the greater part of the world population. The First World is not "the international community". Suck that up.

Even during the height of the cold war, according to one senior intelligence official, at least 20 percent of the intelligence about the Soviet Union came from open sources

That just demonstrates the level of incompetence bordering on neglience in the US political system. All.

...categorical evidence that it was staffed with hacks who had no place making judgments about Soviet strategic culture.

It's head was basically an ardent anti-communist Cold War publicist far more than he was a historian. Did you read anything by R. Pipes? Do you know what sort of a character he is? So of course, if you replace spies with propagandists, that does make one wonder. Sorry, but in my book it's fucking conclusive evidence. When you remove a general and put a political hack in his place (re: 1937), that's evidence of political self-servitude. Same with Team B.

It's the nature of the American system of politics.

No, it's not unique to America. So you should cut the same amount of slack for any politician in any nation. So in all cases where we know a falsehood was spread by a government, we should always say that the politicians were not lying, or not misinforming the public which is the same. This is what you're saying.

[Axis Kast]

That is not a malignant statement. If Khrushev said that he still expects the USSR to destroy Western governments, you'd have a point. Revolutions occuring out of the "people's will" are not evidence of a stated or even implied intent of destruction.

The expectation of revolution arises from the notion there there is contradiction between labor and capital capable of being rectified only by violence.

Neither nation publicly repudiate it's essential ideology. The PRC is credible and so was the USSR. You're just bullshiting. By the way, which "international community"? During the Cold War, the Second and Third World comprised the greater part of the world population. The First World is not "the international community". Suck that up.

The Communist Manifesto's most famous line? "Works of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Essential ideology. The U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. repudiated it for reasons of saving face and soothing tensions with powerful opponents, real and potential.

The rest of your statement is really just a red herring which has no bearing on my argument, and is anyway wrong. Public theater is for all audiences, including those who are in sympathy with the point one is trying to make.

That just demonstrates the level of incompetence bordering on neglience in the US political system. All.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. The use of open source information is a natural foundation. Without it, intelligence information can appear over-specified and useless. Furthermore, some of the things that people in power will want to know are readily available in the public space. Understanding the adversary might begin in Encyclopedia Brittanica. In fact, if you prepare for an intelligence briefing on a particular nation without first having perused open-source data, you probably have not done your job at all.

The source of intelligence material is not a reflection of the U.S. political system anyway.

It's head was basically an ardent anti-communist Cold War publicist far more than he was a historian. Did you read anything by R. Pipes? Do you know what sort of a character he is? So of course, if you replace spies with propagandists, that does make one wonder. Sorry, but in my book it's fucking conclusive evidence. When you remove a general and put a political hack in his place (re: 1937), that's evidence of political self-servitude. Same with Team B.

Please do give us the evidence that Pipes was producing material that was not academically sound. Prove that Pipes' Team B did not include military men. You'll find it impossible.

No, it's not unique to America. So you should cut the same amount of slack for any politician in any nation. So in all cases where we know a falsehood was spread by a government, we should always say that the politicians were not lying, or not misinforming the public which is the same. This is what you're saying.

No, I'm saying there's a very significant difference between learning objective facts and figures, and attempting to judge how credible they were found in the minds of other people.

Analysis from the CIA and other intelligence agencies may or may not be considered credible, depending on the audience. Sometimes, it is absolutely wrong. Nixon's Africa "policy" - which did not really exist, except as a series of coincidental encounters and off-the-cuff actions - was famously founded on the presumption that Portuguese rule in Africa would continue indefinitely. The CIA was famously wrong about Iraq in 2003. Plenty of people on this board believed they knew better. Where were you, then, to defend the CIA's inherent credibility?

[K. A. Pital]

The U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. repudiated it for reasons of saving face and soothing tensions with powerful opponents, real and potential. ... The expectation of revolution arises from the notion there there is contradiction between labor and capital capable of being rectified only by violence.

Axis Kast, you clearly know nothing, right? "Workers of the world, unite!" (end of line) was the official motto of the USSR, which was ingrained on all documents, all papers, and the state seal. It was never publicly repudiated. Moreover, that phrase was hardly even relevant to foreign relations.

As for "contradiction between labour and capital", so what? The expectation of the workers of all nations to overthrow their governments is not the same as destroying them by military force. Expecting something to happen is not the same as expecting yourself to do it. The post-war USSR expected other nations to go to socialism of their own will. It did not expect that it would destroy them. Not that it ever had the ability to do so either.

Please do give us the evidence that Pipes was producing material that was not academically sound

How about a few quotes: "There can be no other alternative than war with the Soviet Union, unless the Soviet Union capitulates" (1981, cited by Arthur Macy Cox Russian Roulette (Times Books, N.Y. 1982), p. 93.), or "100 million victims of the USSR" (by "Revolution in Russia", I could dig out the relevant pages because I have that book). That is not academically, scientifically, or even logically sound. Moreover, it clearly demonstrated Pipes' attitude - not just "very dark" as you tried to fucking soften it with some sort of fuzzy wordies, but belligerent.

Analysis from the CIA and other intelligence agencies may or may not be considered credible, depending on the audience. Sometimes, it is absolutely wrong.

Yes, but replacing it with people who are clearly political agents is conclusive evidence. I challenge you to prove that a historian who has clearly made fallacious statements, whose area of study is Russian history, not modern Russia's industrial weapons, and who held a view of violent confrontation with the USSR being unavoidable is a sound candidate for leading a team that is assessing the performance of Russia's then-current and upcoming (1970s-1980s) weapon systems.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. The use of open source information is a natural foundation.

The USSR, Russia, or most other nations that I know of for that matter, did not base it's threat assessments of other nations's militaries on articles about UFOs or uber-bombers in say "Popular Mechanics" or "Youth Technology". The USSR, or most other nations that I know of, did not at any point in post-World War II history replace their intelligence agency with a team comprised of political agenda pushers, radicals and known fraudsters (I excluded pre-war history because 1937 and "Nazi Science" were examples of just that), so sorry - I find your statements preposterous, outrageous idiocy. Debate on this topic is finished.

Understanding the adversary might begin in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Making inferrence of the "adversarys" nuclear potential and his top-line, currebnt classified technologies, it's defence and offense potential in WMDs, however, cannot rely on Britannica, Popular Mechanics, Aviation Week or any other "open source", and it may not, I repeat, MAY NOT be done by unqualified people without prior experience in intelligence, especially the knowledge of a nation's industrial potential, the skill and practice of interpreting satellite and aviation reconaissance data and everything like that.

So no, you can "begin" with Britannica, but you can't base your policy on such a shoddy bullshit source. You just can't, and if you think that is sound politics, sorry, but we have nothing more to debate. You are an idiot then.

[Samuel]

100 million victims of the USSR" (by "Revolution in Russia", I could dig out the relevant pages because I have that book).

The highest figure I ever heard was 80 million and I'm pretty sure that was from before people had a chance to look at the documents. Isn't 100 million over half of the USSRs population?

As for "contradiction between labour and capital", so what? The expectation of the workers of all nations to overthrow their governments is not the same as destroying them by military force. Expecting something to happen is not the same as expecting yourself to do it. The post-war USSR expected other nations to go to socialism of their own will. It did not expect that it would destroy them. Not that it ever had the ability to do so either.

What did the USSR expect this to look like? Heck, what did they expect a commmunist world victory to look like? This isn't relevant to the discussion, I just can't help wondering.

Also, Kast, the problem with your argument is that the US has a similar ideology towards democracy (although much saner and more restrained) and we generally don't go and invade countries to grant them freedom... Okay, we don't invade other major powers to do that.

[Shroom Man 777]

Saner? More restrained? My country had a government that Vice President George H.W. Bush officially endorsed as free and democratic while our President was, in fact, a now-repudated dictator who instilled martial law nation-wide and had his chief political adversary assassinated in the airport, the moment he landed in the country after exile in the USA. After aforementioned dictator was ousted, he fled to the US of A and retired in Hawaii - with millions of dollars worth of currency stolen from the Philippines and hidden in Swiss bank accounts. You can look him up in the Guinness World Records for the greatest theft in history. The same practically happened all over South America, anyway, except they also had CIA-sponsored deathsquads roaming around the miserable jungle, doing things prescribed in CIA torture manuals handed out by the USA-founded School of the Americas.

At least that shit about spreading socialism and global worker's revolution didn't have violating human rights written down in their goddamn lesson plans. Lesson plans apparently kept by the (now) former Vice President of the USA for... uhh... future reference.

During the Cold War, the Second and Third World comprised the greater part of the world population. The First World is not "the international community". Suck that up.

Those Second and Third World populations that comprise the greater part of the world population are bloody poor people whose faces don't get shown on CNN though. So, who gives a fuck about them? I sure as hell don't, and I doubt you do, either.

Oh wait, we live in those places!

[Axis Kast]

"Workers of the world, unite!" (end of line) was the official motto of the USSR, which was ingrained on all documents, all papers, and the state seal. It was never publicly repudiated. Moreover, that phrase was hardly even relevant to foreign relations.

A phrase about the workers of the world was "hardly even relevant to foreign nations?" And I know nothing?

As for "contradiction between labour and capital", so what? The expectation of the workers of all nations to overthrow their governments is not the same as destroying them by military force. Expecting something to happen is not the same as expecting yourself to do it. The post-war USSR expected other nations to go to socialism of their own will. It did not expect that it would destroy them. Not that it ever had the ability to do so either.

The question is whether the Soviet Union wanted to topple governments in the West. Talking about policy, stated or silent, is otherwise an exercise in digging up meaningless platitudes. The Soviet Union professed peaceful coexistence in the same manner that the United States professed democracy: without practicing it in any context where it was able to "cheat."

How about a few quotes: "There can be no other alternative than war with the Soviet Union, unless the Soviet Union capitulates" (1981, cited by Arthur Macy Cox Russian Roulette (Times Books, N.Y. 1982), p. 93.), or "100 million victims of the USSR" (by "Revolution in Russia", I could dig out the relevant pages because I have that book). That is not academically, scientifically, or even logically sound. Moreover, it clearly demonstrated Pipes' attitude - not just "very dark" as you tried to fucking soften it with some sort of fuzzy wordies, but belligerent.

You provide both quotations without a shred of context, which makes them nigh impossible to adjudicate. The former, for example, was in the context of a governmental transition in the Soviet Union.

Yes, but replacing it with people who are clearly political agents is conclusive evidence. I challenge you to prove that a historian who has clearly made fallacious statements, whose area of study is Russian history, not modern Russia's industrial weapons, and who held a view of violent confrontation with the USSR being unavoidable is a sound candidate for leading a team that is assessing the performance of Russia's then-current and upcoming (1970s-1980s) weapon systems.

A historian was chair. The committee included individuals with other areas of expertise, including military men. Since the question was linked inexorably to strategic culture, there are a number of reasons why a historian would be a logical choice.

Competitive analysis can be extremely beneficial. Pipes was correct when he warned of the danger of mirror-imaging, which is also brought out in stand-up articles like Graham Allison's investigation of the Cuban Missile Crisis, later turned into a book, The Essence of Decision. However, as Lowenthal remarks, the validity of the particular exercise with Team B was compromised by the fact that Team B was "packed." If you're looking for some kind of repudiation of the validity of Team B's work, then sure. However, I refuse to damn Symington until you've addressed my points about potential credible disbelief of the CIA, which as recently as the Guantanamo torture case admitted that it misled politicians.

The USSR, Russia, or most other nations that I know of for that matter, did not base it's threat assessments of other nations's militaries on articles about UFOs or uber-bombers in say "Popular Mechanics" or "Youth Technology". The USSR, or most other nations that I know of, did not at any point in post-World War II history replace their intelligence agency with a team comprised of political agenda pushers, radicals and known fraudsters (I excluded pre-war history because 1937 and "Nazi Science" were examples of just that), so sorry - I find your statements preposterous, outrageous idiocy. Debate on this topic is finished.

At this point, you are only flouting your ignorance of Team B's activities. The exercise was about strategic theory, or the intended application of the Soviet arsenal, as well as the precise contents of its Order of Battle. Use of materials beyond political and technical intelligence and military analysis was therefore absolutely appropriate. Do recognize the distinction between "stacking" a panel, and the methodology by which it is supposed to come to a valid, comprehensive set of conclusions.

You're manufacturing the conditions under which competitive analysis takes place; ignoring that intelligence "experts" are "experts" not only because they have analytical training, but also knowledge of their issue areas both wide and deep; and refusing to engage with my arguments as they were provided. I offered some discussion of why politicians may balk at CIA reports as a counterpoint to your argument that Symington could not but have walked out of a CIA briefing with anything but confidence in their projections, meaning that all of his subsequent comments about the Missile Gap must have been fabrications.

[Samuel]

A phrase about the workers of the world was "hardly even relevant to foreign nations relations?" And I know nothing?

You need to pay more attention to what Stas is arguing.

You provide both quotations without a shred of context, which makes them nigh impossible to adjudicate. The former, for example, was in the context of a governmental transition in the Soviet Union.

That still doesn't make any sense. After all, a war with the Soviet Union would mean the annihilation of said Union. Given that their leaders are mostly rational, MAD prevents either side from going to war.

[K. A. Pital]

A phrase about the workers of the world was "hardly even relevant to foreign nations?"

Foreign RELATIONS moron, and of course if you paid even a little attention to what I said, you'd understand finally that the USSR did not expect ITSELF to destroy or topple the governments of other nations.

End of discussion. I'm tired.

[Axis Kast]

You need to pay more attention to what Stas is arguing.

It was a typo, but the meaning is identical. Foreign relations involves foreign nations.

That still doesn't make any sense. After all, a war with the Soviet Union would mean the annihilation of said Union. Given that their leaders are mostly rational, MAD prevents either side from going to war.

Of course it makes no sense: it's a single sentence, thrust into the limelight, without any background. You can make anything out of it. George Kennan, too, believed that the Soviet Union was inherently (and irretrievably) expansionistic.

Foreign RELATIONS moron, and of course if you paid even a little attention to what I said, you'd understand finally that the USSR did not expect ITSELF to destroy or topple the governments of other nations.

Afghanistan salutes you.

[K. A. Pital]

Afghanistan salutes you.

Next time you try to exchange the USSR militarily upholding it's sphere of influence for "destroying the Western governments", you should do a better job of covering your ass. Afghanistan isn't a Western government. It was a Soviet satellite which was failing. Totally different situation. Maybe you'll bring up Hungary and Czechoslovakia next?

The USSR did not overthrow the capitalist government of Afghanistan to liberate the workers. It intervened on behalf and request of one of the government factions of SOCIALIST Afghanistan. Hwoops. Your theories of the USSR destroying capitalism sadly do not apply to Afghanistan.

[Axis Kast]

Next time you try to exchange the USSR militarily upholding it's sphere of influence for "destroying the Western governments", you should do a better job of covering your ass. Afghanistan isn't a Western government. It was a Soviet satellite which was failing. Totally different situation. Maybe you'll bring up Hungary and Czechoslovakia next?

No nation has a "legitimate" sphere-of-influence. That is simply the privilege, obtained through the application of brute force, of the strong (and thus largely invulnerable).

Examples more proximate to the West? Soviet infiltration of French politics, where segments of the left were virtually in thrall to Moscow. Soviet support for the Sandinistas (in the Western Hemisphere, no less).

Christ, in 1968, you had Brezhnev coming out and declaring that the Soviet Union would act, whenever possible, to retrieve the fortunes of socialist governments - militarily, if necessary. Stated policy. It doesn't get much more bleak that that for the argument you've spelled out.

And do you plan to provide some retort on the Symington issue, or the matter of what is intelligence analysis, independent of your critique of Team B in particular?

[K. A. Pital]

No nation has a "legitimate" sphere-of-influence.

That is a yet further sidetrack from a clear and simple question: "was the official policy of the USSR the destruction of Western governments".

Soviet infiltration of French politics

The French left subordinated to the USSR? Who'd guess. That still has no relation to sovereignity. Castro's Cuba was basically a Soviet satellite, and his nation is still around and sovereign. Also, did the French left act in legitimate limits? Or what, did all their left parties behave the like the R.A.F?

Christ, in 1968, you had Brezhnev coming out and declaring that the Soviet Union would act, whenever possible, to retrieve the fortunes of socialist governments - militarily, if necessary. Stated policy.

Which is "the destruction of Western governments". Wow. I haven't seen a hypocrite quite as eloquent as you, Kast, for years.

And do you plan to provide some retort on the Symington issue, or the matter of what is intelligence analysis

I already said that your interpretation of "intelligence analysis" is preposterous bullshit. One can start with Britannica but one cannot finish with it. One cannot use facts obtained through such 'analysis' as if they were objective undeniable proof of anything. Especially when the intelligence data completely refutes the initial presuppositions.

"Competitive analysis" is only competitive when you actually fact-check both versions. In our case, the alarmist, bogus version supported by often barely more than lies and fantasies, or pop mag false "photos" was taken by the political establishment as UNDENIABLE FACT and used to further the goals of the military industrial complex. To say that Bomber Gap, Missile Gap and Team B were an exercise in "competitive analysis", or even use the word "analysis" relative to that stinking pile of dung is stupid.

I've also let slide that statements of yours:

The exercise was about strategic theory, or the intended application of the Soviet arsenal, as well as the precise contents of its Order of Battle.

Precise content and applications are connected issues. But "precise content" is exactly what I said: the modern military hardware and nuclear deterrent hardware of a nation. Team B was egregiously wrong about it. And it could not have been otherwise.

I offered some discussion of why politicians may balk at CIA reports as a counterpoint to your argument that Symington could not but have walked out of a CIA briefing with anything but confidence in their projections

You offered a flimsy excuse that covers intent, corruption or lobbying under the useful premise of "harmless distrust of intelligence". Yup.

[Axis Kast]

That is a yet further sidetrack from a clear and simple question: "was the official policy of the USSR the destruction of Western governments".

Which isn't clear and simple at all, since, like the stated policies of the United States of America (and every other nation on the planet), the official, stated policy and policy as seen in practice was frequently quite different.

The French left subordinated to the USSR? Who'd guess. That still has no relation to sovereignity. Castro's Cuba was basically a Soviet satellite, and his nation is still around and sovereign.

A direct quote from the 1989 LoC Country Study: "The use of international front (see Glossary) organizations and foreign communist parties to expand the Soviet Union's political influence and further its propaganda campaigns was another form of active measures. The World Peace Council was the largest and most important of Soviet front groups. Together with the International Department of the Central Committee, the KGB funneled money to these organizations and recruited Soviet agents to serve on their administrative bodies." If it looks and smells like transgression of sovereignty...

Which is "the destruction of Western governments". Wow. I haven't seen a hypocrite quite as eloquent as you, Kast, for years.

The Brezhnev Doctrine asserted the right of perpetuation of socialist governments by force, worldwide, as against the possibility of their "backsliding" to some other, inherent capitalistic, form of governance. That this doctrine could be enunciated even after formal repudiation of violent class war? A signal that Khruschev's about-face was a tactical maneuver, and strong evidence that the ideology of Communism was compatible with that of the West only inasmuch as it was hemmed in by bayonets.

I already said that your interpretation of "intelligence analysis" is preposterous bullshit. One can start with Britannica but one cannot finish with it. One cannot use facts obtained through such 'analysis' as if they were objective undeniable proof of anything. Especially when the intelligence data completely refutes the initial presuppositions.

Your series of uninformed strawmen aren't an argument. They do, however, reveal that your knowledge of intelligence analysis and the intelligence process, especially as it intersects with the political realm, is immature at best, practically nonexistent at worst.

"Intelligence" is information. Material collected from "open sources" is still intelligence. It simply happens to be the most accessible form available. In fact, using only data obtained from unclassified sources, dozens of people on this board were only too happy to try and rebuff, then rebuke, George W. Bush when he announced plans to invade Iraq. Why? Because they felt that their information was both credible and sufficient. Tell me: were they incorrect?

Intelligence analysis is the act of putting together pieces of information to tell a story, hopefully a correct one. Intelligence analysts benefit from employing critical strategies such as competitive analysis.

Politicians cultivate their own, private sources of intelligence. They obtain information from friends, benefactors, hopeful clients, and, sometimes, contacts overseas. They may have issue competency gained from extensive and wide-ranging interviews of topical experts. They may doubt the credibility of testimony from military men and even the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 1975, when the House and Senate were dealing with the issue of U.S. policy toward Angola, Senator Dick Clark relied on two scholars, John Marcum and Gerald Bender, to present dissenting opinions that cut against the grain of assertions from military men that there was a danger of Angola's allowing the Soviets to base aircraft out of Luanda. Only today, we have multiple reports that the CIA withheld information from Congress, and generally "misled" politicians.

Precise content and applications are connected issues. But "precise content" is exactly what I said: the modern military hardware and nuclear deterrent hardware of a nation. Team B was egregiously wrong about it. And it could not have been otherwise.

Yes; they were wrong on a number of issues. We have also agreed that Team B was an example of politicization of the intelligence process. However, a history professor (in the ideal) was an appropriate chair for an effort that was devoted, in large measure, to the assessment of the Soviets' strategic culture. It also seems that Team B must have had access to the same intelligence that the CIA used to produce its own reports, else the exercise would have been essentially useless.

You offered a flimsy excuse that covers intent, corruption or lobbying under the useful premise of "harmless distrust of intelligence". Yup.

I offered some discussion of how an individual like Symington could take in a presentation from the CIA and leave unconvinced. I never said that it was harmless.

You, sir, are also certainly still liable to explain to us all how we can know exactly what Symington received in the way of data. As I've specified, the article was able to say only that the CIA told him that the Soviets were once ahead, but now behind due to a cut-back of their own choosing. A hawk would almost inevitably ask, "Well, what happens if they decided to go back into full-swing production?"

[Patrick Degan]

The Brezhnev Doctrine asserted the right of perpetuation of socialist governments by force, worldwide, as against the possibility of their "backsliding" to some other, inherent capitalistic, form of governance. That this doctrine could be enunciated even after formal repudiation of violent class war? A signal that Khruschev's about-face was a tactical maneuver, and strong evidence that the ideology of Communism was compatible with that of the West only inasmuch as it was hemmed in by bayonets.

Incorrect. The Brezhnev Doctrine was the policy asserting the perpetuation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet political control of its member states —specifically, the justification for crushing the Prague Spring with tanks in 1968. It was not shaped as a global foreign policy WRT other Communist states beyond East Europe. Furthermore, Brezhnev's policies were a repudiation of Khruschev's, not a "signal" that Khruschev's policies were "a tactical manoeuver" as part of some grand USSR strategy.

[K. A. Pital]

Which isn't clear and simple at all

Listen very carefully Axis: "stated official policy" and "political practice" are two different entities. You want to completely shift the debate away from official doctrine to practice of foreign relations of the USSR. I see no reason to discuss it, because I never spoke about it in the first place. You may consider that "semantics", but they are not - you yourself just admitted that stated policy and practical policy differ a lot. Thanks for playing and wasting a lot of my time.

Together with the International Department of the Central Committee, the KGB funneled money to these organizations and recruited Soviet agents to serve on their administrative bodies.

The USSR sponsored foreign political parties? Are foreign donations to political forces prohibited by law? In that case any and all donations to politicians by the USA are a transgression of sovereignity. So are donations by Europe. Any and all people in a nation who hold a position in another nation's organizations are also a transgression of sovereignity. That is bullcrap, as I'm sure you understand. Stop grasping at straws - your point has been decisively defeated.

A signal that Khruschev's about-face was a tactical maneuver

Brezhnew ousted Khrushev after the CMC debacle. He partly repudiated his "softball" approach - but even then he never proclaimed a military destruction of "the Western governments". So please, would you stop grasping at straws?

Only today, we have multiple reports that the CIA withheld information from Congress, and generally "misled" politicians.

I'm not saying the CIA itself is either inerrant or not malevolent, moron. But I am well of the opinion that political hacks and treatment of pop mag articles as absolute fact in military planning are unacceptable. End of story.

It also seems that Team B must have had access to the same intelligence that the CIA used to produce its own reports, else the exercise would have been essentially useless.

I have already said that giving "same material" to unqualified hacks is meaningless. Did Team B include people with practical experience of satellite and aerial reconaissance data interpretation?

You, sir, are also certainly still liable to explain to us all how we can know exactly what Symington received in the way of data.

He must have had the access to satellite and aerial reconaissance which the data implies (and which is said in the book I referred you to), since the entire US government received that data which finally put the "missile gap" myth to rest. However, despite the decisive refutation of the "gap", no changes to military doctrine initially justified by this bogus threat was made. This proves without any doubt that the military expansion proceeded regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the gap, and in fact strongly implies that it was the goal all along no matter what the USSR actually fielded.

[Thanas]

^Stas, it wasn't just donations. For example, in Germany the USSR and/or the GDR funded entire newspapers, youth organizations and even terrorist groups like the RAF whose only reason to exist was to destabalize Germany.

[K. A. Pital]

I know that the Stasi (but not the USSR) did fund the RAF at some points, but I am positively sure that Kast's example of France is hardly qualifying. AD and GARI, the most prominent exparliamentary attackers in France, did not receive any funding from the USSR (or other socialist nations for that matter) as far as I know...