ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/24/85)
In article <841@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >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. Hmm... I don't recall the United States setting up its part of Japan (i.e., everything except part of Sakhalin_) as a buffer zone against attacks in the future. The US and the West Europeans didn't conquer West Germany and set it up as a "buffer zone". In fact, there weren't any "buffer zones" of pseudo-independent countries or annexed territory set up by the West Europeans and the US at all. And I am not sure how countries such as Afghanistan count as buffer zones. Nations are not prizes to be won, then treated in any way desired by the conquering power, in this case to be used as a "buffer zone" regardless of the effect upon the inhabitants. Who are those "attacks in the future" going to come from, anyway? I suggest that if the nature of the USSR was such that it kept its people and those of the countries it occupied free, it wouldn't NEED "buffer zones". >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. If you can give some sources for important people who actually believe in a "monolithic" Communist conspiracy I'd like to know. I don't believe in it and I doubt anyone else does either. [statement that countries not invaded by the USSR didn't revolt and that those that were did deleted] >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 Once again, I think this is a straw man. Nobody really believes that Yugoslavia, for example is part of a worldwide Communist conspiracy. >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. Come on, there is a great difference between New Zealand declaring itself a nuclear-free zone and Solidarity. Solidarity is attempting to win basic freedoms for its people which residents of New Zealand are already given. And if New Zealand refuses to cooperate with the US, the US isn't going to invade, or otherwise overthrow the government, or get New Zealand to declare martial law. >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. If central Europe were declared a zone where the people would have basic freedoms and the human rights situation in both NATO and Warsaw Pact countries made tolerable, the world would be a much safer place. In fact, if the Soviet Union were free there'd be much less reason to have a nuclear deterrent in the first place. (Note: in referring to human rights in NATO countries I am being ironic. I am well aware that people have freedom in NATO countries and don't in Warsaw Pact countries, and that this is a fundamental assymetry.) -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa