thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (03/29/85)
> > Reply to Jim Matthews: > > If anything, the Soviets see us as a rich, soft, and corrupt > > power, with no stomach for the real world of power politics. > > . > . > . > > This is a "rich, soft and corrupt" power? Rich, yes. Corrupt, maybe. > Soft? You must be joking! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Jim stated how the Soviets perceive us, not how we perceive ourselves. There is a big difference between the two. Don't forget, the Soviets lost 20 million men, women, and children in WW II and millions more from the purges of Stalin. They may respect our current military power, but they still consider us "rich, soft, and corrupt." Tom Hill
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/02/85)
> > > Reply to Jim Matthews: > > > If anything, the Soviets see us as a rich, soft, and corrupt > > > power, with no stomach for the real world of power politics. > > > > . > > . > > . > > > > This is a "rich, soft and corrupt" power? Rich, yes. Corrupt, maybe. > > Soft? You must be joking! > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Jim stated how the Soviets perceive us, not how we perceive ourselves. > There is a big difference between the two. Don't forget, the Soviets lost > 20 million men, women, and children in WW II and millions more from the > purges of Stalin. They may respect our current military power, but > they still consider us "rich, soft, and corrupt." > > > Tom Hill What is your proof for the assertion that the Soviets perceive us as "soft"? Under Ronald RayGuns and his sabre-rattling regime the ordinary Soviet citizen (as well as many ordinary American citizens) have been scared stiff. Besides losing 20 million in WW II, the Soviets probably remember that *we* sent an armed force to their country, whereas they have never done the same to us. According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" who wish to conquer the world to control markets for our capitalist industries. I.e. they see us as "imperialists" and expansionist in the same way we see them as expansionist. Given our history aren't there some grounds for this viewpoint? I think so. To say that "we see ourselves" as soft is just as hard to prove. We see ourselves as "defenders of democracy" the ones who rebuilt Europe after World War II, as the "heroes" of both World Wars which could never have been won without our gallant entry into these wars. We erect monuments to our soldiers killed by others in our numerous wars: never do we erect monuments to those killed by our soldiers. Unfortunately, the Soviets do the same: they see themselves as "defenders of socialism", as the ones who defeated the horrors of Nazism in WW II, as the vanguard of an ideal communist society. The Soviets,too, erect monuments to their soldiers killed by others: never to those killed by their soldiers. Both sides are wrong. Both sides threaten to make the whole world the innocent victims of their struggles to impose their own way of life on the rest of the world-by destroying that world if need be! tim sevener whuxl!orb "We had to destroy that planet in order to save it!"
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/03/85)
... > What is your proof for the assertion that the Soviets perceive us as "soft"? > Under Ronald RayGuns and his sabre-rattling regime the ordinary Soviet citizen > (as well as many ordinary American citizens) have been scared stiff. No, the ordinary Soviet citizen does not think about politics. Most of those who applaud Reagan in general for his tough stand against the Soviet government. But this is irrelevant anyway, because the ordinary Soviet citizen has nothing to do with Soviet politics. So has the government been scared stiff by Reagan? Well, the Soviet government has an incurable paranoia of the American government. That Reagan should "scare it stiff" is more a symptom of its mental illness than rational thought (a government can be irrational even if its members are rational). But Reagan has little to do with the paranoia itself. That is due to the fundamental ideology of the Soviet system. Even under more restrained Presidents, the Soviets are suspicious, and they work towards strategic superiority under any regime. As they say, "When the U.S. builds up, the Soviets build up. When the U.S. doesn't build up, the Soviets build up." > According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" > who wish to conquer the world to control markets for our capitalist > industries. I.e. they see us as "imperialists" and expansionist in the > same way we see them as expansionist. Given our history aren't there some > grounds for this viewpoint? I think so. My answer to your question is no. In any case, the official Communist line is as irrelevant as the opinion of the man on the street in Moscow. > Both sides are wrong. Both sides threaten to make the whole world > the innocent victims of their struggles to impose their own way of life > on the rest of the world-by destroying that world if need be! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Yes, both sides are wrong. But there are fundamental asymmetries in the arms race. Furthermore, the arms race does not represent an attempt by either side to impose their way of life on the rest of the world. The Soviets see it as their self-defense, while the Americans (well, the hawks in the Pentagon anyway) see American superiority in the arms race as essential to the preservation of peace. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (04/03/85)
> (paraphrasing, as I deleted the 1st line by mistake) In WWII, the US > sent an armed force to their country (USSR), > whereas they have never done the same > to us. According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" > tim sevener whuxl!orb > "We had to destroy that planet in order to save it!" Maybe someone can correct me if I'mn wrong, but I don't think that US (or British, for that matter) troops were ever sent to the USSR in WWII. During the waning weeks of the war in Europe, the advancing armies of the US and UK (on the west), and the USSR (on th east) were all marching on Germany, and basically met at what are now the West German and East German borders (with some US and perhaps British units getting as far east as Berlin, now inside of East Germany). This is quite far from any Russian soil, as Poland is in between. This defacto situation led, in part, to the present division of Germany; the USSR retained control of the territory they advanced over, at the end of the war. The only foreign trrops on Russian soil during WWII were the Germans. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611 PS: This is not to deny that the Russians appear to have a long- standing, historical fear of being invaded, and with good reason, as they have been repeatedly invaded over the years (eg., various Germanic tribes, Mongols, Napolean, and the Germans in WWI, and WWII.)
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (04/03/85)
> harvard!talcott!gjk Greg Kuperberg > Yes, both sides are wrong. But there are fundamental asymmetries in the > arms race. Furthermore, the arms race does not represent an attempt by > either side to impose their way of life on the rest of the world. The > Soviets see it as their self-defense, while the Americans (well, the hawks > in the Pentagon anyway) see American superiority in the arms race as > essential to the preservation of peace. No, the Soviets *say* it is for their self-defence. Don't be so quick to believe everything TASS tells you. Secondly, since when are hawks fond of peace? I thought, by definition, they are the ones hankering for war, and only kept from it by the lie-down-in-front-of-the-tanks bunch called "doves." As to the subject line: It would appear from the above article, and others--they know who they are--that there is a prevailing pacifism. Which is part of a soft, affluent, easy-going life. Untroubled by inconveniences now being suffered by all of the nations of the so- called "Soviet Union", which inconveniences I won't bother enumerating (a) because there are too many, and (b) most of the readership won't accept them anyway. But it may well come down to a simple lack of imagination. Just as the "pro-choicer" can be quite turned around at a viceral explanation-- with pictures--of an abortion, so "soft, rich, pacifists" would be transformed into so many Atilla's if the Red Army came storming over the beach. Anything less (genocide in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, subversion of democratic governments, suppression of religion, and on and on) is merely of a theoretical, academic, interest. Things for which postures may be struck on Usenet. Then again it isn't that simple: they have an enormously over-active imagination when contemplating the usage of the nuclear arsenal. Perhaps it is overdevelopment in this one area that stymies them in others? ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/03/85)
> What is your proof for the assertion that the Soviets perceive us as "soft"? > Under Ronald RayGuns and his sabre-rattling regime the ordinary Soviet citizen > (as well as many ordinary American citizens) have been scared stiff. Maybe the Soviet people are afraid of us -- that's certainly the impression Pravda tries to cultivate. But they have nothing to do with Soviet strategic doctrine, so it's a moot point. > Besides losing 20 million in WW II, the Soviets probably remember that *we* > sent an armed force to their country, whereas they have never done the same > to us. The Anglo-American intervention in the civil war is greatly overrated -- never did an American soldier even see a Bolshevik, much less shoot one. The only significant foreign intervention in that conflict was by the Germans (pro-Bolshevik) and the Czechs (anti-Bolshevik). Even they were insignificant compared to the Russian armies fighting the Bolshevik regime. Remember, it was a civil war -- Russians fighting Russians. The British helped the South in our civil war more than we helped the Whites, but I don't see many Americans holding a grudge about that. > According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" > who wish to conquer the world to control markets for our capitalist > industries. I.e. they see us as "imperialists" and expansionist in the > same way we see them as expansionist. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb The "official Communist line," if not just a lie, is certainly very flexible. The view of capitalist countries being unalterably opposed to socialism was discounted even by Lenin in "Imperialism," and that idea lost all validity in later years. In 1918, if the "official Communist line" was correct, Germany would have turned Russia into a colony, and the British and Americans would have helped out. Nothing of the sort happened -- the capitalists were more interested in competing with each other than in fighting socialism. In 1941, the "official Communist line" you described would have had England and America watch the Nazi destruction of Russia with glee, knowing that we would reap the spoils of their mutual suffering. Instead we were generous in helping a power that only two years before had helped Hitler carve up Eastern Europe. In short, they *do not* "see us as expansionist in the same way we see them as expansionist"!! That is just a totally mis-informed simplification. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/03/85)
> > (paraphrasing, as I deleted the 1st line by mistake) In WWII, the US > > sent an armed force to their country (USSR), > > whereas they have never done the same > > to us. According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > "We had to destroy that planet in order to save it!" > Maybe someone can correct me if I'mn wrong, but I don't think that US > (or British, for that matter) troops were ever sent to the USSR in WWII. > > Bob Schleicher > ihuxk!rs55611 > I think Tim is again referring to the time during the russian revolution when we sent troops *at the request of the russian government* in order to help fight the bolsheviks. It was a case of 'too little, too late'. He doesn't make this clear, presumably to help foster the illusion that we were "imperialist agressors", sending our troops to invade russia. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "No, not bird, nor plane, nor even frog. Just little old me, <crash> UNDERDOG!"- not Idi Ahmin
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/04/85)
<Discussion of American troops on Soviet soil> I remember reading something about American or British air forces being sent to help the Russians at Stalingrad. I beleive it was in WC's history of WWII, however I beleive what the original article meant was the invasion of the Soviet Union between WWI and WWII be the US, UK, and others.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (04/04/85)
> I think Tim is again referring to the time during the russian revolution > when we sent troops *at the request of the russian government* in order to > help fight the bolsheviks. It was a case of 'too little, too late'. He > doesn't make this clear, presumably to help foster the > illusion that we were "imperialist agressors", sending our > troops to invade russia. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j If an army enters a country and attacks its government, it's an invader. The intentions of such an army are irrelevant. The bolsheviks had as much or more right to call themselves the government by the end of WWI as did any other group. After all, they held all the major governmental centers and a large part of the countryside (else they would have starved to death). Anyone who invades a nation deserves the name "aggressor". And what were US intentions in invading? The same as the other European powers who entered into the civil war -- to preserve investments (not necessarily US ones), and to snuff out an example to other dangerous workers' movements. It surely didn't go in to preserve democracy. The term "imperialist aggressors", especially when applied to us by the victor government in that civil war, is an understandable and probably justified description of what the US was doing and wanted to achieve. No illusion here. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/04/85)
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) >> tim sevener whuxl!orb: >> According to the official Communist line we are "Imperialist agressors" >> who wish to conquer the world to control markets for our capitalist >> industries. I.e. they see us as "imperialists" and expansionist in the >> same way we see them as expansionist. Given our history aren't there some >> grounds for this viewpoint? I think so. > >My answer to your question is no. If you honestly think that there are no grounds in U.S. history for the view that the U.S. is imperialist and expansionist, then you don't know U.S. history very well. Start with "Manifest Destiny" and end with Grenada. Mike Kelly
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/05/85)
> I think Tim is again referring to the time during the russian revolution >when we sent troops *at the request of the russian government* in order to >help fight the bolsheviks. It was a case of 'too little, too late'. He >doesn't make this clear, presumably to help foster the >illusion that we were "imperialist agressors", sending our >troops to invade russia. >-- >Jeff Sonntag Not at the request of the russian government. By 1919, the Bolsheviks had been the government for nearly 2 years. There were lots of White Russian warlords roaming the countryside, and it was a very confused period generally. The basic thinking in the West was that Communists were bomb-throwing anarchists, and if they got a foothold somewhere no capitalist government would be safe, so they had better be overthrown. But the intervention was too little, and probably too late. We were, in fact "imperialist aggressors" sending our troops to invade Russia and overthrow the Government (unfortunately, Russia is bigger than Grenada or the Dominican Republic). If the series "Reilly, Ace of Spies" ever comes back on PBS, watch it. It is fundamentally true, and the last few episodes cover this part of Russian history. Reilly appears in the histories of several Secret Services, including the Japanese. According to the TV series, he came within a whisker (nearly said "an ace") of becoming Prime Minister of a post-Bolshevik Russia. I have never seen independent confirmation of this astounding claim. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/08/85)
> If an army enters a country and attacks its government, it's an invader. > The intentions of such an army are irrelevant. The bolsheviks had as much > or more right to call themselves the government by the end of WWI as did > any other group. After all, they held all the major governmental centers > and a large part of the countryside (else they would have starved to > death). The Bolsheviks didn't starve to death because they carried out a war against the country's food producers, a war which killed 5-10 million people. That may make them the government, but it doesn't make them legitimate. > Anyone who invades a nation deserves the name "aggressor". Does this apply to the U.S., British, and Russian entry into Germany in 1945? The U.S. invasion of Vichy France? How about the Israeli mission into Uganda in 1976? Not all invasions are aggressive. > And what were US intentions in invading? The same as the other European > powers who entered into the civil war -- to preserve investments (not > necessarily US ones), and to snuff out an example to other dangerous workers' > movements. It surely didn't go in to preserve democracy. > > Tony Wuersch Nonetheless, the forces being supported by the Allies were the forces of democracy in that country. That they failed is a black mark on the history of this century, the consequences of which we will not soon escape. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (04/08/85)
> ...................The basic thinking in the West was that Communists > were bomb-throwing anarchists, and if they got a foothold somewhere > no capitalist government would be safe, so they had better be overthrown. >............................... > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt This one statement sums it up. They were and are nothing but a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists, and no goverenment, capitalist or otherwise, is safe! -- Mike Stalnaker UUCP:{decvax!grendel,cbosgd!seismo}!dolqci!mike AT&T:202-376-2593 USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213 "You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Never count on having both at the same time." -Lazarus Long.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (04/10/85)
> > Anyone who invades a nation deserves the name "aggressor". > > Does this apply to the U.S., British, and Russian entry into > Germany in 1945? The U.S. invasion of Vichy France? How about the > Israeli mission into Uganda in 1976? Not all invasions are aggressive. > > matthews@harvard Oops, I slipped there. Invasion, to me, is permissable to halt an invader, like the Axis countries in WWII. If by "Israeli mission" is meant Entebbe, I'm not sure I'd call that invasion, since invasion involves, to my sense, attack on the government of a country. In Entebbe, Israel attacked an airport and some terrorists, but not the government of Uganda. I don't think the intervention of the US in the civil war was a good thing, and I stand by my defense of the term "imperialist aggressors" to describe the US in that operation. As far as whether the Bolshevik Revolution was a good thing for the rest of the world is concerned, I think that can only be answered by looking at the alternatives given the failure of that revolution. I think Nazism would have arisen whether the Bolsheviks succeeded or not. I'm also sure that the USSR's role in WWII was the decisive one. Could it have been decisive had the Bolsheviks not succeeded (i.e. would forced industrialization and tank development, etc. have taken place)? I'm not sure, I doubt it. But that's one important question. Another important question is if democracy would have survived in the lively forms it takes today in the Western democracies if the Bolshevik example had not warned the West of the costs of abandoning its ideological ideals? A third question is if the Third World would be better off if they lacked the opportunity to play economic systems off against each other for their own advantage, as they can (in a limited sense) do now. Would richer nations listen to the pleas of poorer nations if the poorer nations couldn't threaten a revolutionary alternative? A fourth question is if China would have mass starvation and population explosion today had it not had a peasant-driven Communist revolution. That revolution depended on the prior success of the Bolsheviks, even though it's common knowledge that the two regimes don't get along today. A fifth question is if those of a more leftist persuasion such as myself would not be in prison or otherwise restrained if the Bolsheviks had not won? I've seen the argument made that suppression of domestic unrest could have become normal state policy throughout the West if all cases of domestic unrest, like the Bolsheviks, had been successfully repulsed by means of state repression. The failure of state repression in the USSR cautioned the West against its use when faced by similar movements or individuals. Norman Thomas was imprisoned for pacifism in WWI; he would not have been in WWII. I don't know the answers to these for sure, but I bet those like Jim Matthews are much more certain. It's a conflictual world, you know. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw