(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
50 years have passed since the October Revolution turned to the state of things in ancient Russia. Throughout the war-torn Europe, developments there were followed with vivid interest and high hopes in the oppressed and exploited peoples. The October Revolution provided inspiration for the revolutionary rise in Germany, and supported the radicalization of the labor movement in a number of other countries, including our own.
The leaders of the October Revolution nurtured the vision of a classless society where war, distress and exploitation had been abolished. The Soviet State represented a solution to the problems that capitalism had created and which had led Europe into the accident. But the Soviet leaders' vision did not come to fruition. They were immediately surrounded by inner and outer ends. France, the United Kingdom, Poland and the United States went to military intervention and actively supported the resistance classes of the privileged classes. Then followed the hunger blockade.
The difficult recovery and industrialization process and the collectivization of agriculture led to new burdens placed on the shoulders of the Soviet people. When it finally seemed to brighten by day, the shadows of the pervading German Nazism widened.
The war caused a huge setback to Soviet society, both materially and in human life. But the victims did not happen in vain. We are also aware of this in Norway, where the Soviet offensive helped to drive the German occupiers out of our country.
Today there is no one, neither in or outside the Soviet Union, who apologized for the crimes committed in the name of communism and the Soviet state under Stalin. They significantly contributed to delaying the process of democratization in the Soviet Union and to bringing socialism into disrepute in the world. The fact that the Communist parties around the world were made into support troops for national Soviet interests as Stalin perceived them, further helped to accentuate the unfortunate development. But when the accounts are to be settled, it also serves no purpose to disregard the enormous difficulties faced by the Soviet leadership, nationally and internationally. Although the divisions of the Soviet Union had their own unfortunate internal dynamics, they must also be seen in the light of the external factors that prevailed.
The country that is celebrating its 50th anniversary these days is in many ways different from what it was just a few years back. The economy of scarcity is a laid-back stage. Industrial and technical development has led to initial prosperity. Democratization trends have become clearer in the political sphere as well. The economic progress, the development of the modern strategy and the political upheavals after the war have led the Soviet Union primarily among the nations and imposed new obligations and new responsibilities on the Soviet people.
Contrary to what has been imagining Western opinion for many years, Soviet foreign and defense policy has largely been defensive and not militant and aggressive. Developments in recent years, in the shadow of the new weapons of mass destruction, have further emphasized that the Soviet Union feels an active responsibility for the preservation of world peace, the first condition for any development to take place at all. The moderation and prudence shown by Soviet leaders is in stark contrast to the aggressiveness that is currently being expelled from the US, which repeatedly jeopardizes world peace.
Some view the Soviet peaceful coexistence policy as an expression of indulgence towards the United States. It is a mechanical way of thinking that does not take strategic development into account. The super bombs and the intercontinental rockets have put an end to the ultimatum as a tool in big politics.
In Europe, coexistence policy has led to a favorable approach between the countries of the east and west, and has been one of its most important achievements that France has withdrawn from NATO cooperation. Among other things, as a result of coexistence policy, the United States can no longer automatically rely on Western European support for its adventure policy, although NATO integration seems strongly binding on the dispositions of many Western European countries.
Some of the leaders for the new revolutionary movements in the developing world have raised severe criticism of the Soviet Union for lack of support. Some of this criticism may be justified, although the hopeless situation many of these movements find themselves in helps to make the criticism well voiced.
Those who criticize the Soviet Union for lack of interest in the revolutionary movements in developing countries and for entering into an understanding with the United States should also have realized that the revolution in Cuba would have long since been condemned if the Soviet had not provided generous financial and military assistance. . Furthermore, it is the Soviet people who, in their daily work, bear a significant part of the costs incurred by the US aggression on the people of Vietnam. And when some of the Arab countries today are not completely at the mercy of the Israeli leaders and Western economic interests, it is not least due to Soviet political and material support. These too are factors that must be taken into account in the assessments.
