When did it all go wrong for the soviets?

>When Beria was murdered instead of replacing Stalin.
what has that got to do with it? The war took place long after Kruschev left power. How would having a sadistic rapist in charge change anything?

great post

This

>should we develop the economy
>or build nukes and spacecraft

They were some evidence suggests that Beria was more open to West than most of the party high up. He doesn't want to pick a fight with the west and probably offer corporations and trade in return of western support for his reign over Soviet. Probably like Yeltsin but less drunk.

>like Yeltsin but less drunk.
nah, just as drunk, but with more raping little girls and detaining whoever he liked for indefinite torture.

>They were some evidence suggests that Beria was more open to West than most of the party high up

Was that actually true? I thought it was just a show trial accusation, like saying they were "really" working for the British/American/French intelligence services to undermine the USSR

>Based on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the uprising, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of theCold Warfor massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. For example, Beria gaveEstonia,LatviaandLithuaniaserious prospects of national autonomy, possibly similarly to other Sovietsatellite statesin Europe.[43][44][45]

I don't know if this is true or just his enemy's accusations.

day one

1921-1922

this is demonstrably false and the only evidence you need is the result of the 1991 referendum

>They did eventually come up with quite effective tactics
what was that tactic?

>They did eventually come up with quite effective tactics
I said tactics, not one tactic.

There were many innovative tactics they devised, as in any war the commanders learn from their mistakes (or their colleagues mistakes) and adopt solutions. 10 years is plenty of time to innovate an entire new method of fighting, which is exactly what they did.
Initial textbook Soviet tactics involved armored companies spearheading attacks, supported by mechanized infantry on a wide front, all charging forwards to minimize ranges as fast as possible and then bypassing areas of resistance and sending reserves to the breakthrough points. Obviously none of this works in Afghanistan.

So they came to rely on a kind of combined arms airborne tactics - firstly misinform the enemy as to your intentions, drop dummy parachutists if necessary. Infiltrate soldiers in the night to be in position at dawn, land soldiers by helicopter at strategic points, have them co-ordinate with mechanized infantry, utilize the "bronegruppa" tactic of keeping BTRs and BMPs at range and using them as fire support groups while the infantry advance ahead on foot.

The specific tactics really depend on the mission objective. Many ingenious missions were successfully completed by the Soviets during the war. Many were also failures or of mediocre success.

Read "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" if you want to see what Soviet tactics in the war were like. pic related

Attached: Islam-Dara Canyon op.png (1286x923, 224K)

Thread Theme:
youtube.com/watch?v=jzhB0reqpJQ

Soviet-Afghan war playlist:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIx7audKFzyTTI2Tr4cRfrCJsLDjPMdZ

Attached: 1498860161870.jpg (800x539, 130K)

When they won the revolution and formed the USSR.

the moment Germany gave money to Lenin

Attached: brainlet4.jpg (588x823, 109K)

Um it depends on what you mean by wrong? Are you asking when it became an extremely unpleasant place to live? When it became corrupt to the point of choking on itself? Or when it became politically untenable?

Khrushchev ultimately, but Brezhnev was the last nail in the coffin of the USSR.
Alternatively the early death of Lenin before he was able to implement even half of his vision would be an acceptable answer.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned.
Attempting to simply implement and subsequently prop-up a puppet regime was an objective that was doomed to failure from day one.
Directly annexing the nation and integrating it as an SSR would likely have been more successful in the long run, assuming that the USSR had enough 'steam in the tank' left by that point to develop and forcefully integrate the nation worth a shit.

This is as relevant a thread as I'm going to get, so I have a question.
A while back on YT I found a song of the Soviet-Afghan war. There was only acoustic guitar and a man singing. It was about an (armoured) convoy bringing supplies. Does anybody know the song I'm talking about?

Attached: damn he's smooth.png (348x334, 172K)

Khrushev, he antagonized China in his half-assed attempt to reform the union while killing any real attempts to actually build up the country. But even then it was not too late, it's the fact that Brezhnez ends up taking the power for 16 years instead of the triumvirate that really kills the soviet union.

youtube.com/watch?v=OhgSFOnia3g
Nevermind I somehow found it.

30th December 1922

bullshit. Most of the minority groups didn't even want to leave the Soviets after it's demolishing.

>It was inherently doomed from the start because of their policy of multiculturalism and favouring minority groups
Good Job, you're retarded.

Attached: Hero of the Slavic people.jpg (517x600, 90K)

How true is the statement that Afghanistan was the Soviet Union's Vietnam?

Imagine a world where this happened tho.. Things would be so much better for everyone desu.

they aren't comparable at all

Pretty true. 10 year war that they could never really win against guerrillas who were never where they thought they were. Huge use of heliborne troops and the whole thing devolving into seek & destroy tactics with little effect on the outcome of the war.

>

Also, in the novel The Hunt for Red October, Tom Clancy writes that veteran Soviet naval captain Marko Ramius refused to allow dedovshchina to be practiced anywhere on his ship, dismissing it as "low-level terrorism".

that's neat

On the outset of the Soviet invasion, not true at all. The guerrillas were badly organized, and had shitty leadership. They had no real bases of operations, organized army or a central government, everything that Hanoi had.

The rebels had limited foreign support compared to the vast amount of money, support and arms that flowed from the Soviet Union and China to Hanoi.

Of course, this was all fixed by the American and Pakistani partnership in arming and organizing the rebels, and engaging with the other Islamic countries by internationalizing the Soviet invasion as a global jihad against the godless communists.

They gave freedom of speech to people making it impossible to sustain itself for long

dedovshchina is horrible. I read about it in "One Soldier's War" (which is about Chechnya). Truly awful and literally driving hundreds of soldiers to suicide throughout any given Soviet war.

Attached: 1498861202496.jpg (1023x682, 240K)

What do you think of the song Mi Uhodim(Were Leaving)?

youtube.com/watch?v=UCnvLIoVDS8

Attached: RIAN_archive_476785_Soviet_Army_soldiers_return_from_Afghanistan.jpg (1024x676, 317K)

The Soviets and the DRA infilicted way more losses on the Mujahadeen than the Mujahadeen did to them.

Attached: 61ff0ef4c2450e2a1cc54af367d38b6b--afghanistan-war-soviet-army.jpg (564x373, 56K)

>way more losses on the Mujahadeen than the Mujahadeen did to them.
Are you accidentally including civilians in these statistics? Aside from the odd successful Soviet raid, the Mujahideen almost always inflicted more casualties than losses in their ambushes (which were the bread and butter of their operations). They usually describe using ~30 men to conduct an ambush, destroying ~20 soviet vehicles and anywhere from 20-50 infantry, then retreating before artillery or air strikes could be called in, taking almost no losses themselves (perhaps 2 or 3 casualties max).

Read "The Other Side of the Mountain" if you're interested in what Mujahideen operations were like.

Also
>Inflicted *far more losses
would be better English.

Attached: Massoud with captured Soviet AK-74.jpg (500x648, 150K)

Check catalogue nigga

Attached: soviets.png (356x202, 82K)

Circa 1650, with the rise of the Russian Empire and its irrational economics. Also 1914 when it helped start the Great War and the subsequent destruction it suffered for the next 4 years. Followed 1918 by a Counter-Revolution that lasted until circa 1923 with additional loss of life and property. This was followed by a massive theft of overseas assets by various capitalist/Imperialist countries from the Russian Republic, and political, economic, and military conflict with these same countries. The world wide Depression of the 1930's caused additional delays in recovery from the Imperialist years. Then Germany attacked 1941 and caused additional loss of property and loss until 1945, which was then followed by a renewed Cold War by foreign Capitalist/Imperialist powers. The final straw was Sting's Russian tour and the C.C.C.P. collapsed.

U.S.A.

Why do you lie, /leftypol/?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_independence_referendum,_1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_independence_and_democracy_referendum,_1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_independence_referendum,_1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_independence_referendum,_1991
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_independence_referendum,_1991

when trotsky was exiled

When Lenin abolished the soviets.
>U
>S
>S
>R

he never abolished the soviets. what are you talking about?

NEP.
Also, lord Kukuruzzo in charge of the country.

When they took over

>one thread about Afghanistan
>one thread about the Soviet-Afghan War
What exactly is the problem here?

Can you cite an instance of a monoculture, dweeb?

Gorbachev.

the vast majority of citizens of the Soviet union supported the May referendum, the December referendum is a later one. Why do you obfuscate /pol/?

/pol/ cites gulag archipalego and black book of communism, do not trust them for proper critique of leftism

I just found it funny that OP is asking about what went wrong with the USSR and there was a thread about the Soviet-Afghan war right next to it

They prosued women's rights and land reform in a traditionalist society.

youtube.com/watch?v=i8K0sW8GX-4

Except for everyone around General Secretary Beria.

Holy shit is that an extended magazine?

Attached: nvgs.jpg (427x427, 21K)

CIA NIGGERS INTERVENED

This

Attached: destroy the CIA nigger.png (1124x1161, 1.49M)

>Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

Attached: CIA Nigger lynching.jpg (814x1159, 729K)

>ctrl+f
>Charlie Wilson
>0 results

lads...

>the vast majority of citizens of the Soviet union supported the May referendum
You mean the one that was actually BOYCOTTED in the Baltics and the Caucasus?
>Russians vote to keep the Baltics
>this means the Baltics wanted to stay in the USSR!
>even though the Baltics voted for independence later on
The absolute state of /leftypol/

Even counting the boycotting republics (baltics and the caucasus except for azerbaijan) turnout was 80% with 77% in favor of preserving the USSR. If the baltics, armenia, and georgia broke off the vast majority of all other republics were in favor of preservation