The U.S.S.R. Never Had Problems With Terrorism

Probably the reason why the former U.S.S.R., which was widely hated on a scale comparable with the U.S.A., never suffered much if at all from attacks by terrorists (even from attacks to its interests or personnal outside the country), is because those who might have conceived such a thing knew that if they implemented their notions, it would probably be the biggest mistake they or their country ever made.


Now I am not suggesting that we nuke Afghanistan or anything like it. That would be unfair to the common people and probably counterproductive.


It just seems interesting that U.S.S.R.-haters apparently never had the inclination to carry out their worst thoughts, while U.S.A.-haters have done so on numerous occasions. I can only surmise that it was the specter of terrible retribution which kept U.S.S.R-haters at bay.


While suicide bombers obviously embrace the prospect of death, I don't think they would embrace the prospect of the complete destruction of their homeland. Again, I am not suggesting this, only observing and pointing up an interesting non-parallel in historical terms, and speculating as to why.

Are we sure the U.S.S.R never had such problems? They were not well known for detailed and accurate reporting of events that put the government's abilities in a bad light.


Also, terrorism was not as much of a problem during the heyday of the Soviet Union's swagger, the 50s and 60s. Or if it was a problem the amount of damage that could be caused was certainly less than now due to technological advances since that time. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done any study of, or knows anything about, the incidences of terroristic activity directed at the U.S.S.R in the 50s and 60s vs. that directed against the U.S. You might well be correct.

He may be correct, he may not be correct. I think I agree with you that we don't really know.


Like you said terrorism is a phenomena that has really elevated since the 70's and 80's and also seems to be centered on the extremely difficult issues of Israel and Palestine. The USSR never played anywhere near as big a role as the US did in the Israel/Palestine problems. Obviously the USSR was involved but not to the same extent as the US.

Yes, what you wrote is probably quite true:"Like you said terrorism is a phenomena that has really elevated since the 70's and 80's and also seems to be centered on the extremely difficult issues of Israel and Palestine. The USSR never played anywhere near as big a role as the US did in the Israel/Palestine problems." And there are probably other factors as well which might skew the scales. The U.S.S.R. was hated by many within the country and by many in the Soviet Bloc countries in Europe, and these people may not have been as likely to commit terrorism (especially if they had relatives who would suffer for their actions). As Andy Fox points out, we may not have heard of every incident. However I think we definitely would have heard of incidents which could have occurred outside the U.S.S.R., such as attacks on embassies.

Maybe, the United State's wealth, abundance and standard of living makes it a target in a way that the USSR was not. That is, jealousy and envy towards a target could be additional motivations for implementing terrorist acts, even from religious extremists who supposedly do not care about material possessions.

"Terrorism" is a new name for an old term. It used to be called "guerilla warfare". Lawrence of Arabia, a British military hero and guerilla warfare innovator used to attack Turkish civilians by sabotaging their trains, then looting them. He would then give the spoils to his followers for motivation and also to keep them alive in the dessert.

Some reasons why the USSR was never the victim of the types of terrorist attacks the US was:


1. Israel was a US ally, not a Soviet one.


2. The USSR had less motivation to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, and more specifically OPEC, because of its own vast oil supply.


3. The USSR was usually on the side of those likely to resort to guerilla warfare terrorism, ie, the disenfranchised, and the poor. On the other hand, the US frequently took the side of the rightist "establishment" 3rd world despots, whose backers were less likely to resort to terrorism. A good example of this would be the US backed Shah of Iran, as well as the oligarchies in place in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central and South America.

Correct, and I should have made it more clear in my original post that there were many reasons why the USSR would be less likely to suffer terrorist-type attacks.


I still do find it interesting that with all those in the world who hated the USSR, I cannot ever remember a news incident in which a Soviet embassy was attacked, or anything like that...not once! Perhaps I missed something or my memory is faulty, but it does appear to me to have some significance.