orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/12/85)
> "A war with mercy between communism and capitalism > is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to > attack. Our moment will come in twenty to thirty years time. > To win we will naturally have to have the element of suprise > on our side. So the western bourgeosie will have to be put to > sleep. We will, therefore, have to launch the most spectacular > peace movements the world has ever known. They will contain > electrifying proposals and extraordinary concessions. The > capitalist countries, decadent and stupid, will cooperate with > joy in their own destruction. They will jump at the chance of > friendship and business. > And when their guard is down, we will crush them with our > clenched fist." > -- Dimitri Z. Manuilski > Former President United Nations > Security Council General Council > > -taw So where did you obtain this quote? The same place Reagan got the following quote, supposedly from Lenin, which he has used repeatedly?: "We will take Eastern Europe. We will organize the hordes of Asia. And then we will move into Latin America and we won't have to take the United States; it will fall into our hands like overripe fruit." (Reagan repeated this quote in a recent interview with Ted Koppel; he has used it many other times) Karl E. Meyer did some research substantiating this quote. The White House Press office could not document the quote. The Library of Congress could find the quote nowhere in either the Russian or English editions of the Collected Works of Lenin, but only had a press clipping describing the quote as a fake in 1958. Finally he found the quote: in "The Blue Book of the John Birch Society" on page 10. (this is reported in the NYTimes October 8,1985, editorial page) I suppose it should not be surprising that Reagan has repeatedly mouthed fabrications of the John Birch Society as "truth". But I am rather surprised that similar fantastic and totally unsubstantiated sorts of claims are repeated on the net. Will you please provide a credible reference for your above quote? I will not consider "The Blue Book of the John Birch Society" or similar tracts by the Christian Identity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan or other such wacko right-wing sources credible. It would be pretty stupid for any diplomat from *any* country to make statements like the above - their public statements are generally marvels of hypocrisy in support of their "peaceful intentions" and so forth. If you cannot substantiate your quote, I suggest you retract it. tim sevener whuxn!orb
matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews) (12/13/85)
>> [nasty quote about Soviet Union crushing the West] >> >> -taw > Sevener: > >So where did you obtain this quote? The same place Reagan got the >following quote, supposedly from Lenin, which he has used repeatedly?: > > [nasty quote by Lenin that in fact came from the John Birch Society] > >I suppose it should not be surprising that Reagan has repeatedly >mouthed fabrications of the John Birch Society as "truth". >But I am rather surprised that similar fantastic and totally >unsubstantiated sorts of claims are repeated on the net. It is easy to point to the Birch story, or the poor translation of the "We will bury you" line as evidence that all harsh anti-U.S. statements must be fabrications -- this is *not* so! The Lenin quote is implausible only insofar as it makes such a specific prediction -- in its attitude it rather mild for Lenin. As for Krushchev, the Soviet Union has threatened the West with nuclear annihilation on many occasions. I suggest reference to Kennan's "Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin" or Scott's "The Soviet Art of War" for some candid descriptions of Soviet attitudes toward the West. Even better, learn Russian and read any Soviet treatise on nuclear politics or the future of Marxism-Leninism. The stupid thing about the John Birch quote is that they didn't have to make it up -- if someone had done their research they could have had the real thing. >It would be pretty stupid for any diplomat from *any* country to >make statements like the above - their public statements are >generally marvels of hypocrisy in support of their "peaceful >intentions" and so forth. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb You'd be amazed. Kennan quotes one Soviet statement, "typical of thousands of others," which basically calls for all Communists to fight to the death with the capitalist system, regardless of any notions of law or national sovereignity. Lenin once said (and I can get the reference) that it was ludicrous for the Soviet Union to advocate disarmament, since violence was the only refuge of the progressive class. A 1972 Soviet book on military strategy dismissed the "bourgeois" notion that nuclear war was unwinnable, or even unjust, when used for a progressive cause. I could go on and on. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/20/85)
> A 1972 Soviet book > on military strategy dismissed the "bourgeois" notion that nuclear war was > unwinnable, or even unjust, when used for a progressive cause. I could go > on and on. > > Jim Matthews > matthews@harvard I cannot be sure of the book you are citing. However it is probably the same one which the proponents of "protracted nuclear war" have used to argue that the Soviets have written that they believe a nuclear war can be "won". The funny thing about that book as pointed out by Richard Scheer in "Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War" is that it cites *American* articles on planning to "win" a nuclear war. These articles came out some time in the 70's. There were one or two articles in Soviet strategic journals which later took up this absurd notion. This only makes sense: it would be completely ludicrous for any Soviet military expert to suggest they could somehow "win" a nuclear war when during the 50's the US could attack the USSR and the Soviets could not counterattack at all, when during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviets had less than 300 strategic warheads and the US had thousands. As I have pointed out before the notion of protracted nuclear war (which implies several beliefs: 1) that somehow there would be something left after full scale nuclear war that would be worth "defending" with more nuclear weapons and 2)that being able to continue launching nuclear weapons after a full-scale nuclear attack is worth spending billions and offers some sort of strategic advantage implying a "victory" in nuclear war) is in Pentagon plans for the future. The project involves digging tunnels or caves and burying nuclear missiles within them: the missiles would theoretically be totally bombproof but could only be used by digging them out for weeks or months. The US has never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons: therefore it is obvious that our current nuclear strategy assumes that such *first* use is neither unjust nor unwise. Defending the cause of Capitalism is therefore seen to be worth the destruction of the human species. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/20/85)
> As for Krushchev, the Soviet Union > has threatened the West with nuclear annihilation on many occasions. First, I would like you to present *specific* instances in which the Soviet Union has threatened the first use of nuclear weapons. I believe there are probably such occasions: according to "Arsenal of Democracy" the US has threatened the use of nuclear weapons on numerous occasions in veiled diplomatic terms. I would imagine the Soviets have done the same. Second, obviously both sides are threatening the world with nuclear annihilation at *this very moment*. Otherwise there would be no point to each side adding 5 new warheads to their nuclear arsenals every day. On the other hand there are some concrete steps which can be taken to diminish this threat. It is surprising, and embarassing to the US, that the Soviet Union is currently taking the lead in several areas of arms control by unilaterally stopping all their nuclear testing and also all antisatellite weapons tests. Twenty years ago it was the US which took the lead when John F. Kennedy stopped US atmospheric nuclear tests in hopes the Soviets would respond and stop all atmospheric tests by both sides. Of course, as you are well aware Kennedy's unilateral moratorium on atmospheric testing led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty which has never been violated by either side. The Soviets have just offered to renew their current six-month ban on nuclear testing. Reagan has refused yet again. In the past Reagan said such a ban couldn't be verified: in the first place this is no objection since the ban would be very well verified after completing and formally ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. Besides this the Soviets just offered to allow US inspections and monitoring to verify a bilateral test ban until such a treaty is formally ratified. Still Reagan refuses to stop nuclear testing. Why? There is only one reason: to continue building new and more dangerous nuclear weapons and to continue research into the nuclear-powered X-ray laser for Start Wars. I think any reasonable person must agree that stubbornly continuing to test *new* nuclear weapons when the other side has *stopped* *unilaterally* is utter insanity. But the Reagan administration is not sane. tim sevener whuxn!orb