orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/04/85)
> > > >The reason the Soviets currently dominate Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, > >and East Germany dates to World War II................................ > > Followed by a synopsis of the basic politics in Eastern Europe > which explains why the governments which exist there now are there.. > > (Tim, I tried to keep the key parts of you statements above, if I goofed > the editing,etc please say something. I edited only for the sake of > size- M.S.) > > Tim's synopsis of the political and strategic situation at the > end of World War II are accurate, and I compliment him on both theri > accuracy and conciseness. However, I was speaking of the Berlin > Blockade, the Invasion of Afghanastan, the Milatary backing of North > Vietnam, the recent sabre-rattling along the Polish Border, the > Invasion of Hungary and Chzk. (I won't even attempt to spell it again > , as I don't have a dictonary around). Tim, you did not address a > single one of these. If the East Germans choose to be a member of the > Communist Block OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, so be it. I talking about the > countries which have been forced into the fold or are currently be > forceably kept there, against the will of the people. > -- > Mike Stalnaker 1)Soviet backing of Vietnam was also backing a campaign which first started before WW II to free Vietnam from Western colonialism. Vietnam is an independent country which has sought better relations with the US for some years but the US, until recently has refused to grant better relations. It was the US which was the outside intruder in Vietnam just as the USSR is invading Afghanistan despite arguments they were "invited" by the govt. of Karmal. The Vietnamese govt could decide to cut close ties with the USSR tomorrow just as China did in the early 60's. While I think the Vietnamese campaign to free themselves from Western colonialism was totally justified, their violent means, as usual, have had horrible results. Today despite their small size, after 40 years of War the Vietnamese have the fourth largest standing army in the world: they have become so oriented to fighting War and military hierarchy that they seem unable to successfully adjust to Peace as evidenced in their skirmishes with China and Kampuchea. Soviet support of the Vietnamese use of violence to attain independence was as misguided as our current arming of Afghan rebels. 2)There was just an interesting Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes about the impact of detente on the promotion of human rights and dissent in Eastern Europe. As I previously pointed out Joan Baez recently gave a concert in Gdansk for Solidarity. According to the author of the Op-Ed piece who had just been to Eastern Europe the dissidents there *support* detente and improved relations between the US and USSR because it was detente which promoted travel, trade and communication with the West which promoted groups like Solidarity. She reported that sociological studies determined that 70% of Solidarity's leaders had traveled to the West because of loosened travel restrictions after detente. I support human rights and the promotion of independence from the USSR for the countries they occupied after WW II and continue to dominate. I think that *de* militarizing Europe by the promotion of nuclear free zones and balanced conventional force reductions would be far better for human rights than continued miilitarization and sabre-rattling. Trade and other joint ventures are also of great importance if these have human rights provisions attached. 3)You missed my key point: that there is a crucial distinction between the occupation and continued domination of Eastern Europe which occurred after WW II and either a)independent communist or socialist movements OR b)the idea that the Soviet Union is bent upon conquering and subjecting every other country in the whole world. tim sevener whuxn!orb