HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
I'm sorry I can't agree. In 1945 the US. wanted to turn these countries into a "sphere of American influence". No government in Russia, including the old Imperial one could allow that, and it was even more bonkers after the events of WWII. It is most unlikely that Stalin wanted to overrun W.Europe, remember the famous "naughty piece of paper" with Churchill, also the whole of the western Russia/Soviet Union was utterly devestated. NATO was formed, not for defensive purposes but for nuclear first strikes on the Soviet Union, the allies forming both the bases and "support" for this. Later, when this strategy failed, they would provide bases for a large army amd covert operations for the invasion of Eastern Europe. These plans were utterly serious and part of the reason they failed to come off was the understandable panic of the Brit allies - the famous "First Sea Lord's minute" and churchill's visit to America in 1951 to dissuade them. Whatever meglamania Stalin may have had they were matched by that of a certain Harry S. Truman and the merry men of the Council of Foreign Relations. --- Richard Knox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > > Cossack - you and I see it exactly the same. > > I must admit there is one area that is not > completely clear and that has to > do with Europe. > > As I'm sure you know - the Soviet position was that > they merely wanted to > hold the countries that formed a buffer between them > and Germany/France who > had in past invaded Russia. In fact these countries > became their empire - > example - in Moscow the good busses and elevators > and other somewhat hi tech > stuff came from those countries - they were an > important part of the Soviet > economy. I really don't know what > Stalin would have done with regard to the rest of > Europe if the US had not > founded NATO. It is a matter open to speculation > since we can't ask him. It > is easy for me to imagine his taking the great bulk > - including past hated > enemy Germany and France - since of the great > megalomaniacs of the century - > I think Stalin might have exceeded little Bush. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mitchell Jackson > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 12 January, 2002 6:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Richard: On Latvia ( or: Why I hate > Gorby) > [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] > Importance: High > > > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > Richard, > > Bravo sir! Seems we share approximately similar > views. In sum total, > though the Soviet Union was involved in many > countries, it generally was in > response to either direct security concerns (such as > Afghanistan) or in > response to requests from forces fighting to create > some form of livable > society for the majority. This stands in stark > difference from the US which > involved itself in numerous countries' internal > affairs for the benefit of > the tiny minority of ruling elites to the deteriment > of majority of the > populace and always inclined to Uncle Sugar. > > Cossack > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Richard Knox > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 21:33 > Subject: RE: Richard: On Latvia ( or: Why I hate > Gorby) > [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] > > > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > David > > Isn't there also an issue of freedom that goes > thus. They draft > someones son to right a wrong somewhere -and he > gets killed. Was his life > less valuable than the lives he was sent to improve? > > Second: I suspect that in some situations you > can not help someone > without harming them indirectly. > > Finally - I don't think that the USSR sent > military to Afghnanistan > primarily to impose socialist values. As you know > the religous fanatics > funded by the US were making raids into Soviet > territory and then retreating > to Afghanistan. The military was sent to create a > stable situation and > eliminate the instability on its border - but its by > product was a modern > socialist life for the citizens of Afghanistan. > > Richard > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 12 January, 2002 4:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Richard: On Latvia ( or: Why I > hate Gorby) > [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] > > > > > Heather: > > > > I wasn't very clear. But – yes -- if a country > imposes western values > for the sake of imposing western values (as opposed > to righting some > injustice), this is imperialism, and is no better > than imposing capitalism > on the rest of the world. If, on the other hand, a > country is intervening to > overturn an “oppressive system” -- not always easy > to determine by > outsiders -- than this, to me, is a just act. > > In the case of Afghanistan, because a group of > people -- in this case, > women -- were living under extremely oppressive > conditions, the intervention > could be said to have been just. If, however, the > Russians had intervened > just for the sake of imposing socialist values on > the rest of the > population, than this would, indeed, be no different > than European > colonialists carrying out the "white man's burden". > > Both material equality or individual rights > are not universal > concepts. In many cultures, a translation for > "equality", let alone > “individual rights”, does not exist. Yet, to some > matriarchal African > cultures, the most seemingly egalitarian western > households would be > considered oppressive. Should then these African > cultures intervene to > overturn our backwards ways? > > I’m not extreme cultural relativist, but, I > realize that it is > difficult, in many cases, to determine whether a > form of oppression is > actually taking place, as any good anthropologist > would tell you (and I’m > not an anthropologist either). The perception “of > righting a wrong” is very > much determined by the eye of the beholder as > opposed some objective > criterion, and may in fact have the opposite effect. > > Just like today with imperialist > “interventions”, colonists viewed > colonialism as an altruistic endeavour. Indigenous > cultures were assumed to > be backward, barbarian, primitive, and so forth, and > transformed to suit the > needs of the colonialist, with devastating > consequences for the people > effected. Yet, imposing socialism instead of > capitalism on these cultures > would have had similar consequences. What caused the > destruction of > indigenous cultures was less to do with imposition > of capitalist values and > more to do with the disruption these changes caused. > Therefore, westerners > concerned about maintaining the continuity of > indigenous ways of life should > be worry of the effect so- called “modern values” > (including modern > medicine, western schooling and the like) have on > others. > > David O Q > > > > 12 Jan 02, at 11:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > > --------------------------- > > > > The Marxist were imposing western values on > the people of > Afghanistan? > > Medical care, food distribution, education > and female equality are > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
