mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (11/20/85)
Let's clarify a few points: In article <828@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > >The U.S. spent more in 1980 than in 1970 in constant dollars for defense: >despite the fact we were fighting a substantial war in Vietnam in 1970. > OK, this may well be the case. Again: WE HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR THE ALMOST TOTAL STANDSTILL THAT EXISTED after Vietnam. Plus, I have never said that the milatary isn't guilty of large amounts of waste. >> >> Tim, when you say congress approved 95% of Reagan's requests, >> was that by number of requests, or $??? > > that is by $$$, i.e. Congress approved 95% of the dollar requests > for the budget presented by Reagan > This one still seems odd. Could you give me a pointer to a reliable source? (I don't want to sit down and analyze the whole DOD proposed budget vs the approved one...) > U.S. U.S.S.R. >strategic nuclear warheads 10,000+ 7400 >all nuclear warheads 29,100 17,140 > >The U.S. has 600,000 times the explosive power of Hiroshima. I think >a strong defense is quite different than mutual suicide. Sources? Also, look at total Launch Systems along with warheads. **NOTE** I am NOT advocating building more warheads per se. Updating delivery systems, improving ranges, etc, yes. More total warheads, we don't need. My biggest grouse has been that our delivery systems are not protected enough. (With the exception of the SLBM fleet) >Kruschev *never* said "we will bury you." What he said was >"we will survive you." This has an entirely different meaning. > If the translation was different, or misunderstood, ok. I don't speak more than 30 or 40 words of Russian, so I can only go by translations. >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? >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments >by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these >countries. >Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty >decades ago? > "Peace in the World, > or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb This is the part I have the real argument with. What about Hungary, Chezklosvokia(sp?), Berlin, Afghanastan, North Vietnam, Poland, and Laos just to name a few? All taken either with the direct involvement of Soviet troops, or Milatary assistance. To say that the Soviet Union is not attempting eventual world conquest is to deny the that Marx and Lenin ever existed. World conquest has been a part of the Soviet Conquest ever since the Revolution. Again I am not arguing for MORE warheads, or even for Nukes at all. What I am saying is that the S.U. has proven again and again that they will expand their empire any way they can, at almost any cost, and that they must not be allowed to do so. Please note that in my original article, I used the term strong DEFENSE. Unlike many, I try to seperate offense and defense. Also, one cannot simply deal with the balance of nuclear power, but must also look at the balance of conventional power as well. One parting thought: Have we shot down any unarmed airliners that have gotten off course over our territory? -- Mike Stalnaker uucp: {seimso,hao,decvax!decuac}!dolqci!mike arpa: mike%dolqci.uucp@seismo.css.gov "You can have peace, or you can have Freedom. Never count on having both at the same time." --Lazarus Long
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/25/85)
I have pointed out some of this in another article, but let me repeat an elementary history lesson for Mike Stalnaker to answer his questions on the Soviets in Eastern Europe: > > >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? > >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments > >by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? > >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the > >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these > >countries. > >Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty > >decades ago? > > "Peace in the World, > > or the World in Pieces!" > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > This is the part I have the real argument with. What about > Hungary, Chezklosvokia(sp?), Berlin, Afghanastan, North Vietnam, Poland, > and Laos just to name a few? All taken either with the direct > involvement of Soviet troops, or Milatary assistance. To say that the > Soviet Union is not attempting eventual world conquest is to deny the > that Marx and Lenin ever existed. World conquest has been a part of the > Soviet Conquest ever since the Revolution. > > Mike Stalnaker The reason the Soviets currently dominate Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany dates to World War II. It is generally forgotten by Americans now (a recent NYT survey showed this true to such an extent a sizeable percentage of Americans thought we fought *against* the Soviets in WW II!!) but the fact is that the Soviets suffered more casualties in WW II than any other nation - 20 million Soviets died. Hitler threw a major portion of his tanks and resources against the Soviets and initially, like so many previous invaders, sliced through Russia like a hot knife through butter. The Soviets kept requesting the Allies to open up a second front to divert Hitler from the War in the East. They did not do so until D-Day. Meanwhile the Soviets finally threw back Hitler and at the end of the War they were regaining Eastern Europe from the Nazis in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. Some countries, such as Yugoslavia with Tito and Rumania, had their own independent resistance forces which defeated the Nazis. Because these countries did have their own independent forces the Soviets never marched in: the Nazis were already defeated. As the Soviets defeated the Nazis in these countries they established Occupation governments, just as the US later did in West Germany and Japan. Stalin also carted away whole factories from these fairly industrialized countries in Eastern Europe for Soviet development. Agreements were made which were supposed to allow for the establishment of Parliamentary democracies in these occupied countries. However the Soviets put all their weight behind native Communist Parties which at that time were quite subservient to Moscow as the "leader of World Revolution". Backed by Soviet power, these Communist parties destroyed any semblance of "democracy" or balance of powers and instead established regimes in the Stalinist style. Thus what were initially to be transitory "Occupation" governments became established governments. To an extent one could say the US did the same thing in Japan - Japan's government has been greatly influenced by the model setup during the American occupation. However it is in some respects a far better model of government. (In some respects not) Because the Communist parties which came to power in these countries achieved power solely on the basis of Soviet patronage, they have generally *not* been very independent. One should also note that it is not just the Communist party itself which owes its power to Soviet patronage but that *segment* of the Communist party willing to be subservient to Moscow and Stalin. Which was not necessarily all, nor certainly not the brightest and most promising segment of the indigenous Communist Party in these regions. The one notable exception to this tendency of the Soviets to establish client regimes under local Communist parties was Austria: the Soviets withdrew their occupying forces from Austria under terms which provided for Austrian neutrality and nonparticipation in either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Since then Austria has had a Parliamentary democracy generally electing moderate democratic socialists. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look it up in any history book dealing in depth with this subject. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (11/27/85)
In article <843@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >I have pointed out some of this in another article, but let me repeat >an elementary history lesson for Mike Stalnaker to answer >his questions on the Soviets in Eastern Europe: >> >> >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? >> >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments >> >by both East and West. Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet? >> >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the >> >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these >> >countries. >> This is the part I have the real argument with. What about >> Hungary, Chezklosvokia(sp?), Berlin, Afghanastan, North Vietnam, Poland, >> and Laos just to name a few? All taken either with the direct >> involvement of Soviet troops, or Milatary assistance............ > >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 uucp: {seimso,hao,decvax!decuac}!dolqci!mike arpa: mike%dolqci.uucp@seismo.css.gov "You can have peace, or you can have Freedom. Never count on having both at the same time." --Lazarus Long