I’m not really well informed enough but my understanding is that after Afghan communists took power, the Soviets had very little at all to do with supporting that government until they sent troops like a full 6 months after the CIA began arming, organizing and funding reactionary forces in the country, something which a US official famously admitted, boasting about provoking the “invasion”. Maybe a more proactive approach by the Soviets could have been more effective than going in only after the government was already beset by well armed forces of reaction. I don’t know though, it’s just a thought. I wasn’t trying to say you’re wrong, I just think it isn’t so black and white as to say they did the opposite of non-interference.
My general reading of the Cold War is that the USSR as opposed to how they were painted by western propaganda as this scheming force trying to install communism everywhere is that they were actually highly conciliatory and as you said trying to avoid WW3, whereas the U.S. was the truly aggressive and belligerent actor across the globe. The USSR mostly restrained itself to supporting causes that solicited their help and only then when they had already taken state power or were close to doing so. As you said they were like this even before WW2, telling the Chinese communists to continue working the KMT is another example.
Post WW2 they were highly conciliatory giving half of Berlin to the capitalists, allowing the U.S. to occupy half of Korea and only begrudgingly aiding the DPRK military campaign after Kim took action to end that occupation. The U.S. was far more aggressive in places like Greece, and later places like Indonesia where the U.S. was actively bombing parts of the country and provided support to the anti-communist military forces allowing them to kill a million people and destroy what was a large well organized communist party in one of the world’s most populous countries. I can imagine an alternate history where the communists in Indonesia armed themselves with the aid of the PRC or USSR and that huge win for the forces of reaction never happens (actually, Mao warned the Indonesian communists to arm up and they chose not to so it’s not a criticism of China or USSR, more so just illustrative of how sometimes choosing to not act or bide your time can be disastrous in general).
But I mostly agree with you, and I think China has been served well by following a strict non-interference policy during this particular historic moment. I was only quibbling with the characterization of the USSR’s policy as the opposite of that, their actions were somewhere in between. There may have been times they got involved unnecessarily but I think there were also times where they could have been served well by doing a bit more.
I’m not really well informed enough but my understanding is that after Afghan communists took power, the Soviets had very little at all to do with supporting that government until they sent troops like a full 6 months after the CIA began arming, organizing and funding reactionary forces in the country, something which a US official famously admitted, boasting about provoking the “invasion”. Maybe a more proactive approach by the Soviets could have been more effective than going in only after the government was already beset by well armed forces of reaction. I don’t know though, it’s just a thought. I wasn’t trying to say you’re wrong, I just think it isn’t so black and white as to say they did the opposite of non-interference.
My general reading of the Cold War is that the USSR as opposed to how they were painted by western propaganda as this scheming force trying to install communism everywhere is that they were actually highly conciliatory and as you said trying to avoid WW3, whereas the U.S. was the truly aggressive and belligerent actor across the globe. The USSR mostly restrained itself to supporting causes that solicited their help and only then when they had already taken state power or were close to doing so. As you said they were like this even before WW2, telling the Chinese communists to continue working the KMT is another example.
Post WW2 they were highly conciliatory giving half of Berlin to the capitalists, allowing the U.S. to occupy half of Korea and only begrudgingly aiding the DPRK military campaign after Kim took action to end that occupation. The U.S. was far more aggressive in places like Greece, and later places like Indonesia where the U.S. was actively bombing parts of the country and provided support to the anti-communist military forces allowing them to kill a million people and destroy what was a large well organized communist party in one of the world’s most populous countries. I can imagine an alternate history where the communists in Indonesia armed themselves with the aid of the PRC or USSR and that huge win for the forces of reaction never happens (actually, Mao warned the Indonesian communists to arm up and they chose not to so it’s not a criticism of China or USSR, more so just illustrative of how sometimes choosing to not act or bide your time can be disastrous in general).
But I mostly agree with you, and I think China has been served well by following a strict non-interference policy during this particular historic moment. I was only quibbling with the characterization of the USSR’s policy as the opposite of that, their actions were somewhere in between. There may have been times they got involved unnecessarily but I think there were also times where they could have been served well by doing a bit more.