janw@inmet.UUCP (11/25/85)
[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >> > If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that >> > they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of >> > Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? >> We will note that Tim omitted Hungary from his list. [Tom Hill] As well as Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. >My point was not that the Soviets are totally innocent of any charges >of aggression, manipulation or dominance of other nations. My point >was that there is a major difference between their actions after >World War II to retain the countries they won from the Nazis as a >buffer zone to prevent such attacks in the future and the right-wing >hysteria which paints the Soviets as out to conquer every nation in >the world and make it a Soviet Socialist Republic. That buffer zone logic is precisely the recipe for infinite expansion: you need a new buffer to guard your existing buffer etc. Wouldn't the whole of Europe be a wonderful buffer ? But the best buffer is the globe. >The latter is typically couched in terms of the "monolithic Communist >Conspiracy" in which the Soviets represent a monolithic Communism >arrayed against a "free and democratic" West. >One would think that after China's break with the Soviet Union and >Nixon's trip to China that such myths were dead forever. But they >have too much power as justifications for the military-industrial >complex to be discarded. Never heard, or read *anyone* saying that. Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric was specifically directed at the USSR. This is not a myth, but a *meta-myth* : a myth about the ex- istence of a myth. (No, I don't mean invented by you, Tim: I've heard it before). >As one examines the actual history of Communism in various countries >one finds that those countries in which indigenous movements came to >power (e.g. China, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Albania for example) >have each developed their own foreign policies independent of >Moscow. On the other hand, those countries such as Hungary, Poland, >Czechoslovakia, and East Germany which were conquered from the Nazis >by the Soviets during World War II, *have* had Communism imposed >from without and maintained primarily by Soviet power. True for the examples you quote. Exceptions: Rumania whose foreign policy, though not independent, has slight deviations, and Cuba, whose foreign policy, once somewhat autonomous, deviates now less than that of Rumania. The fact that there *is* a Soviet division stationed in Cuba but none in Rumania and that Cuban secret police is supervised by Soviet "advisers" while Rumanian isn't, may have something to do with it. >It is interesting to note that each of these countries, except >for East Germany, have had nationalistic revolts against Soviet >domination. Hungary revolted in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, >and Poland in 1980-81. Factual correction: East Germany did revolt, in 1953. Poland revolted three times: 1956, 1970 and 1980. >This is important to understand for several reasons: > 1)military significance - the Soviets know that the members of > the Warsaw Pact are very reluctant members of that Pact. > Indeed, Rumania is nominally a member of the Warsaw Pact > but allows no Soviet soldiers on its soil and refuses to > participate in any Warsaw Pact exercises. Constant recitation > of the number of tanks possessed by the Warsaw Pact ignores > the way in which Warsaw Pact members would be extremely likely > to drag their heels in any conflict. But these tanks are mostly in *Soviet* hands. Also, the most *modern* weapons are. The other members are not an important part of the equation, except as an economic resourse. > 2)it is simply *UNTRUE* that every Communist or Socialist > country is necessarily a tool of Soviet domination. Of course. The same meta-myth. But where the Soviet domination *does* appear, they insist on exporting their system as well as their influence. Not all Communist countries are their satellites, or allies - but all their allies are satellites, and Communist. Thus, Communism is not *irrelevant* to Soviet expansion. >We tend to make this prophecy come true by driving every indepen- >dent Socialist movement into the Soviet camp: i.e. Cuba 20 years >ago, and Nicaragua toda Now this *driving* explanation *is* a myth: both Cuba and Nicaragua had *plenty* of opportunities to avoid a break with USA. It *is* in the USA interest to support the independence of Com- munist countries bordering the Soviet empire, such as China and Yugoslavia. And so it does. But a Communist regime far away from Russia feels far more threatened by its own population than by Soviet domination - so it accepts such domination, in one form or another, as a guarantee of its rule (Warsaw pact regimes also accept it, but *they* have no choice). Historically, this is analogous to the Holy Alliance. Today, it is called the Brezhnev Doctrine. The USA cannot offer them *that*, so there is no chance of them switching sides. Let me summarize: Communism and Soviet expansion are two different problems. Both are problems, and they have a connection. The Soviets are not madly expansionist: but they are expansionist. They use opportunities. WWII was a great one; others came before and after, and they were used. Very moderate amount of resistance is enough to prevent Soviet expansion; but it must be unflagging. Also, there is no reason for *US* to accept Brezhnev doctrine and consider previous Soviet accretions sacrosanct. Opportunity can work both ways. Today its names are: Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan. In each case, the *moral* course is the same as the *prudent* course. Oh, and one more thing. Chances of disarmament are REAL. The rea- son: the state of Soviet economy. They'll probably have to cut armament growth *with or without* a treaty, though it is terribly hard for them politically because of the military influence. As for the summit, it did what it could: i.e., nothing. Jan Wasilewky
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/26/85)
>[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >>> > If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that >>> > they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of >>> > Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? > >>> We will note that Tim omitted Hungary from his list. [Tom Hill] > >As well as Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Ok, Jan, I've changed my mind, you *are* stupid. Obviously Tim didn't include them because they *have* been invaded. If he had included them in the list, then his statement would have simply been factually false. The *point* is that there is legitimate reason for honest, intelligent, analysists to hypothesize reasons for Soviet aggressive behavior other than "world conquest". Tim asked a legitimate question: why did the Soviet Union allow Austria its independence. If you are *intellectually honest*, if you are going apply the same principles to the analysis of politics that you would to science, then you must be prepared to reconcile that fact with the "world conquest" hypothesis. Treating those who disagree with that interpretation as though they are apologists for the USSR is ideologically driven dishonest rhetoric. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/28/85)
>Tim asked a legitimate question: why did >the Soviet Union allow Austria its independence. I had the pleasure of visiting Austria last April. It is quite a pleasant place to be. I heard that the reason Austria was given its independence was that Kruschev wanted to demonstrate his good intentions. One thing that seems to have been ignored is that Kruschev was rather liberal by Soviet standards.
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/28/85)
[-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)] /* Written 3:06 pm Nov 26, 1985 by jim@ISM780B in inmet:net.politics */ >[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >>> > If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that >>> > they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of >>> > Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years? > >>> We will note that Tim omitted Hungary from his list. [Tom Hill] > >As well as Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. >Ok, Jan, I've changed my mind, you *are* stupid. Obviously Tim didn't >include them because they *have* been invaded. If he had included them >in the list, then his statement would have simply been factually false. He was quite correct in omitting the invaded countries from the uninvaded list. Neither Tom Hill (as I read his remark) nor I said it was a factual error. In summer '39 the statement: "Hitler has not invaded weak neighbor- ing countries of Poland, Belgium and Denmark" would have been factually true. Austria and Czechoslovakia would be conspicuously absent from the list. It would be quite appropriate to point out that absence. The omitted countries do affect the issue (whether the USSR is after world conquest). It is one thing not to invade countries of a certain kind; it is another thing to invade them in a certain order. Some people (not just Tim) have tried to draw a boundary between Soviet conquests of WWII and their alleged lack of expansionism before or after. It was, according to these optimists, a one-time thing. The Poles may keep suffering but at least we are safe. History does not bear them out. Several countries were invaded by the Soviet Union *before* WWII , and several *after*. A part of Tim's argument remains valid: they didn't invade some countries when they could. The conclusion I drew in my response was that they are cautiously, not madly, expansionist: they calculate costs and benefits. Still, conquest of an extra country is, for them, always a benefit. Jan Wasilewsky