cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (Carl W. Amport) (11/23/83)
I strongly disagree that their memories have faded, ours or theirs. My father served in WWII in a US armored division (European front) and I guarantee he has forgotten very little as has anyone else who served or knew someone who served or was born before 1930. Many leaders in this country know what war is like: WW II, Korea, Viet Nam. I do not think the memories fade. I feel that the Soviets' memories of WWII would fade much slower than ours. They fought the Germans longer and lost many more people - also, for them it was fought "closer to home". I do agree with the rest of your article. The Soviets must always be dealt with from the position of strength - and firmly. Nuclear weapons will not go away and I feel that it is better to have too many than to have just a few. However, it is very important to keep stability and verifiability into both our nuclear arsenals. It is a good situation when both sides know when bombers are scrambled and silos are built and warheads are 'put into place'. Stability is very important - having 1000 warheads vs. 4000 warheads is not as important. Another point is well taken. It was, and is, widely believed that Stalin was responsible for the execution and slaughter of many more people than Hitler. It was not widely publicized at the time of WWII or soon after because Stalin was 'our ally' against 'the enemy'. I will again repeat my belief that we should have forced Stalin out of eastern Europe and defeated the USSR in the middle or late 40's when we had the upper hand. One point I would like to make is about The Day After and the other big series about J.F.K. I feel both will be good for Ronald Reagan and his bid for re-election. Although The Day After was supposedly pro-freeze I think it will help a president who portrays strength and firmness in foreign policy. This is also very much true of the J.F.K. story - both he and Ron as president have such similar foreign policy views. Of course that is not surprising since J.F.K. in '59 and '60 sounded much like his opponent, Nixon, when it came to foreign policy. I would guess (and from what I have read) that he defeated `tricky dick' (narrowly) mainly on the strength of his personality. Carl W. Amport Naperville, IL. ihuxm!cwa