orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/23/85)
Apparently it is difficult for some people to grasp a sophisticated argument which does not simply divide the world into all black and all white: > > 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. > > > Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty > > decades ago? > > Awfully generous people aren't they :-) I mean giving people their freedom > and all :-) . > > Tom Hill 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. 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. 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. 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. I think the reason East Germany has never revolted is because Germany is divided: therefore the major channel for German national aspirations has been striving for better ties with West Germany. 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. 2)it is simply *UNTRUE* that every Communist or Socialist country is necessarily a tool of Soviet domination. We tend to make this prophecy come true by driving every independent Socialist movement into the Soviet camp: i.e. Cuba 20 years ago, and Nicaragua toda Rather than seeing everything as some "Battle for Democracy vs Communism" we should recognize that the primary problem is the struggle for national supremacy which has fueled wars for centuries irrespective of ideologies. Britain and France were both *Capitalist* countries and yet they fought wars all over the world. At the same time, local nationalism throughout the world is regarded as a threat to both the US and USSR. The US does not want New Zealand asserting its national rights by declaring itself a nuclear-free zone. Nor does the USSR want Solidarity with its nationalistic aspirations to succeed in Poland. Yet it may be precisely these non-aligned nations and people who would also be annihilated in a nuclear war who are probably the key to Peace. If Central Europe were declared a nuclear-free zone and mutual cuts were made in both Warsaw Pact and NATO forces the world would be a much safer place. Regardless it is certainly far more complicated than Ronald Reagan and most Americans brainwashed by years of propaganda believe it is. tim sevener whuxn!orb "Soviet vs American" conflict
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (11/26/85)
In article <841@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >It is >interesting to note that each of these countries, except for East >Germany, have had nationalistic revolts against Soviet domination. > This is not correct: there was a nationalist uprising in the German Democratic Republic in 1953. The only Warsaw Pact country which has never had nationalistic opposition to the USSR is Bulgaria.