In 1958, Hungary wanted independence from the Stalinist USSR, so the Pact threw over thirty thousand troops at the problem, resulting in “repression of the Hungarian Uprising killed 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Soviet Army soldiers, and compelled 200,000 Hungarians to seek political refuge abroad.”
In 1968, Czechoslovakia wanted to enact liberal reforms, but the Pact interfered by invading Czechoslovakia with over a quarter million troops along with tanks and aircraft. As a result, I believe about a hundred civilians were killed, and the conflict lead to “a wave of emigration, largely of highly qualified people, unseen before and stopped shortly after (estimate: 70,000 immediately, 300,000 in total)
Compared to that, NATO seems much more of a neutral defense pact—for example, despite the increasingly illiberal governments in Poland and Hungary today, I have heard no mention of using NATO to ~imbue their evil hearts with liberal values~ correct the situation.
Also, speaking to the “Poor people just want freedom and protection” point, from talking with my parents it seems like freedom is a lesser value (less understood, less sought after). The two big ones though are security, especially from the big, aggressive neighbor to the east, and prosperity, in which the difference between the West and those countries behind the iron curtain was vast.
Compared to that, NATO seems much more of a neutral defense pact—for example, despite the increasingly illiberal governments in Poland and Hungary today, I have heard no mention of using NATO to ~imbue their evil hearts with liberal values~ correct the situation.
There’s no way you can establish democratic norms directly by using offensive military power in Poland or Hungary. That’s in the nature of what democracy is about.
When it comes to more covert military power, it’s hard to know to what extent the surveillance powers get used to affect the politics of those countries.
I fully agree. My point was not that NATO and the Warsaw Pact were morally comparable or equivalent. They are not. They were comparable in a strategic, power-balance sense however. For some people, that is all they see. See also longer response above.
Another point to the NATO-Warsaw Pact comparison:
In 1958, Hungary wanted independence from the Stalinist USSR, so the Pact threw over thirty thousand troops at the problem, resulting in “repression of the Hungarian Uprising killed 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Soviet Army soldiers, and compelled 200,000 Hungarians to seek political refuge abroad.”
In 1968, Czechoslovakia wanted to enact liberal reforms, but the Pact interfered by invading Czechoslovakia with over a quarter million troops along with tanks and aircraft. As a result, I believe about a hundred civilians were killed, and the conflict lead to “a wave of emigration, largely of highly qualified people, unseen before and stopped shortly after (estimate: 70,000 immediately, 300,000 in total)
Compared to that, NATO seems much more of a neutral defense pact—for example, despite the increasingly illiberal governments in Poland and Hungary today, I have heard no mention of using NATO to ~imbue their evil hearts with liberal values~ correct the situation.
Also, speaking to the “Poor people just want freedom and protection” point, from talking with my parents it seems like freedom is a lesser value (less understood, less sought after). The two big ones though are security, especially from the big, aggressive neighbor to the east, and prosperity, in which the difference between the West and those countries behind the iron curtain was vast.
There’s no way you can establish democratic norms directly by using offensive military power in Poland or Hungary. That’s in the nature of what democracy is about.
When it comes to more covert military power, it’s hard to know to what extent the surveillance powers get used to affect the politics of those countries.
I fully agree. My point was not that NATO and the Warsaw Pact were morally comparable or equivalent. They are not. They were comparable in a strategic, power-balance sense however. For some people, that is all they see. See also longer response above.