[Bosnjak]

There were many communist insurgency who got beaten up, but a established communist state was never defeated on the Battlefield, f.e. Sowiet Union , North-Korea, Vietnam...

[The Immortal Goon]

North Korea is Juche, not communist. They're very explicit about this, and their first action as a state was to expel the Marxists.

Generally a socialist state is hard to beat on the battlefield because they're difficult to establish. When the time comes that such an overwhelming amount of people want to have a socialist state, so much that they can defeat their own bourgousie and the world bourgeoisie, it becomes pretty difficult to stop them.

The Soviet Union is always the big example, but the Bolsheviks won out in a catastrophe that could be roughly paralleled to the Americans in the following situation: the American Civil War had happened while the British, French, and Germans sided with the Confederacy; Canada and Mexico took the oppertunity to invade; Oregon, California, and Kansas rebelled into seperate countries; and the Japanese claimed the Pacific and all rivers connecting to it.

A state that survives something like that is going to have a lot of support. And anybody else coming in afterward to topple it is going to have a lot to live up to.

Before that though, there are innumerable central and South Americans that have tried and failed to create a socialist state; same with in Asia.

[Rugoz]

Afghanistan?

[Atlantis]

They don't have to be defeated on the battlefield because they will always collapse due to their dysfunctional economic system. Watch Venezuela.

There is no need to go to the trouble of a shooting war if you can win the trade war.

[layman]

Actually, they never had that many conventional wars. The soviets (post stalin at least) were very dove-like. Especially when compared to the yanks.

Afghanistan springs to mind although that was a loss to an insurgency. The initial war was 'won' in three weeks. The cubans had a few failed expedition type wars in africa. Also, North Korea failed in its objective to conquer the south. You can call that a loss or a draw but I call it a loss.

Oh and I think the early soviets lost a brief move against poland?

[Potemkin]

Oh and I think the early soviets lost a brief move against poland?

Actually, Poland invaded Soviet Russia, hoping to grab some territory while the Reds were distracted fighting against the Whites in the Civil War. The Bolsheviks managed to drive the Poles back to the gates of Warsaw, but bungled the final few battles and had to sign a peace treaty with the Poles which re-established the status quo ante bellum.

[layman]

Brief wiki reading suggests british public opinion was pro-soviet

Also, treaty seems failry two way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga

[Potemkin]

Brief wiki reading suggests british public opinion was pro-soviet

Of course it was. Guys like me or Decky were ten-a-penny back then. Even in the 1950s, the CPGB had almost 200,000 members. It was only the Cold War and the post-War economic boom of the 1960s which finally put paid to mass support for Communism among the British working class.

Also, treaty seems failry two way

Of course it was. The Polish-Soviet War ended in what was effectively a draw, after all. The treaty simply reflected this fact.

[Rich]

The Bolsheviks were beaten by the Germans in their first months of rule and then had to make a humiliating peace deal, although to some extent this was Lenin's pay-off to the German high command for letting him cross Germany and stuffing his pockets with Gold. The Soviet Union was essentially beaten by Germany in world war II as well, it was only saved by the British Empire and the United States.

Of course the SU even after initial set backs was able to take on and defeat mighty Finland.

[Potemkin]

The British Empire was essentially beaten by Germany in world war II as well, it was only saved by the Soviet Union and the United States.

Fixed it for you, Rich. Even Churchill admitted that we were basically fucked until the Soviet Union and United States joined in on our side.

[Beren]

Is the communist a quiet kind of person who enjoys peaceful work and family life? Can those things make the communist happy or does he always need an enemy to fight or a cause to fight for? What does self-fulfillment mean to the communist? What makes him always ready to sacrifice himself, which is a great advantage on the battlefield? If we can answer that questions, or raise and answer some more like them, it may help us solve the mystery I think.