-Caveat Lector-
Origins of the nuclear stalemate by J R Nyquist
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_nyquist/19991004_xcjny_origins_br.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
By the end of World War II the United States had become the greatest
military power of all time. Not only did we have a monopoly on nuclear
weapons, but we had something approaching global air and sea supremacy.
America also had large and successful ground forces. The Germans could not
stop our armies, though they gave it their best try in the Battle of the
Bulge. In this famous battle Hitler massed the weight of his elite panzer
divisions against the American forces. But the panzers were defeated.
In early 1945 the Russians were advancing from the east, the Americans and
British from the west. Roosevelt and Churchill were ready to agree, in
principle, to give half of Europe to Stalin -- who began the war as Hitler's
partner in aggression. The allies intended to keep faith with Stalin, to
hand over Russian prisoners and deserters to him. These poor people were
subjected to cruel treatment in Stalin's labor camps. It was shameful that
we accommodated him. But our desire was to have a good working relationship
with the Communist dictator.
After the war, Soviet Russia was exhausted; its economy was in ruins. If we
had been faithless allies, determined on dominating the globe without
interference, we could have rearmed the Germans and marched over Russia,
liberating the East from a dictatorship as evil as Hitler's. Some, like Gen.
George S. Patton, believed that war with Russia would be inevitable in the
long run. According to his hopeless minority opinion, any failure to
forestall Russian ambitions would only lead to a disastrous future war.
Americans are generous people. We do not approve treachery or faithlessness.
The Russian and American people fought and bled on the same side, against a
common enemy. Attacking an ally is vile, so it was not in our character to
attack Russia. We did not break her power when we had indisputable mastery
over the land, air, and sea. If our leaders and our people had been cynical
enough, we could have engineered a crisis or discovered a pretext for
crushing the Soviet Union. Instead, we gave our friendship to Russia. Even
conservatives mumbled vaguely that the evils of Communism had been canceled
by the blood of the Red Army. Gen. Eisenhower, on returning from Europe,
told Congress that "nothing guides Russian policy so much as a desire for
friendship with the United States."
But it wasn't true. We know from defectors and other historical sources that
the Kremlin hated the Western countries. According to Robert Conquest, a
noted historian of Soviet Russia, the Kremlin was so determined on enmity
with America that the Soviet government ordered hundreds of thousands of
Russian soldiers to be arrested and imprisoned because they had met and
fraternized with American troops in Germany. One Soviet official was
sentenced to five years imprisonment for praising America's roads. Even
before Hitler's defeat, Stalin openly told a Yugoslav delegation that he was
thinking of the next war, which would be fought against America.
But the Americans did not imagine a future war with Russia. After Hitler's
defeat, articles appeared in American magazines which painted a very false
and rosy picture of Russia. Look magazine ran a cover story entitled, "A Guy
Named Joe," telling what a nice fellow Stalin was. Other magazine and
newspaper stories praised Communist democracy. Collier's magazine asserted
that Russia had "a modified capitalist set-up." Other articles claimed that
Russia was becoming more liberal, and would soon be like the countries of
Western Europe.
Not realizing the true state of affairs, the United States began an
unprecedented disarmament after the surrender of Japan. Thousands of ships
and tens of thousands of planes were retired from service. The greatest
military arsenal up to that time was allowed to rot. The Kremlin, on its
side, demobilized in a partial and calculated way. America had no designs on
Russia, no plans to squeeze the Communists out of existence, but a similar
resolve did not appear on the Soviet side. Stalin was determined to have
nuclear bombs of his own. He imposed Communism on the states of Eastern
Europe, contrary to earlier assurances. Stalin also supported revolution in
Greece. He even put the squeeze on West Berlin. He gave the green light for
North Korea to invade South Korea. President Truman was furious. At one
point Truman called the Soviet foreign minister a liar.
The United States had acted in good faith. We did not want the Cold War, and
we did not start it. The Russians were determined to build a force of
strategic missiles armed with thermonuclear warheads. Their military
writings referred to a future nuclear world war and the necessity for
preparedness. But America did not prepare for such a war. Yes, we built
nuclear missiles, but these were made for purposes of deterrence -- not in
order to win the Third World War. While Russia dug bomb shelters and
deployed ABM systems, America developed its consumer culture.
For a long time the Cold War was a nuclear stalemate. Russia and America
were armed with nuclear missiles. The side that wanted to destroy the other
did not have sufficient means. The side that could have destroyed the other
did not desire a war. If America had decided to build bomb shelters and ABM
defenses, Russia would have fallen hopelessly behind. If America had decided
to prepare for World War III, no country could have matched our
preparations. But we didn't want World War III, and we didn't want to burden
ourselves with preparing for it. We had an opportunity to live comfortably
in the present. We took that opportunity without thinking about the future.
Carl von Clausewitz, Europe's most famous philosopher of war, made a
fascinating point about armed stand-offs. He said that if two parties arm
themselves against each other but do not begin to fight, then one of the two
parties is waiting for a more favorable moment to act. If America's
objective was to destroy Russia, then Russia would not have a chance. Russia
would have long since ceased to exist as a nuclear superpower. But since
Russia was the weaker country, it had to wait for a favorable opportunity.
Clausewitz noted that when the weaker power has the stronger motive to
aggression, the equation becomes one of prolonged stalemate.
The nuclear balance of terror was exactly such a stalemate. The reason that
nuclear war has not happened is because the side with military victory in
mind -- the Russian side -- was always too weak. The United States possessed
a superiority that defied any serious challenge. But now the tables are
being turned, and America's position of comparative strength is evaporating
day by day.
In recent weeks the Russian security forces have been calling up medical
personnel to military bases, picking up men of military age wherever they
can find them and shipping them off for basic training. Russia is engaged in
a huge war mobilization. Last week there were at least four major ballistic
missile tests. Last month Russian bombers probed our air defenses off
Alaska. At present the Russians are engaged in joint naval exercises with
the Chinese -- who are also mobilizing their forces because of a dispute
with Taiwan.
The mobilizations in Russia and China are not being matched by the United
States. As in the period immediately after World War II, we believe in peace
and friendship with Russia. Our officials see the crisis in Dagestan and
Chechnya as further proof that Russia is disintegrating. But is the Russian
civil war crisis a set-up? Has it been created by the Russian secret police
and Interior Ministry as a diversion to mask war mobilizations against the
West? Consider the surprising statements made last week by a Russian
general, Aleksandr Lebed, in an interview with the French newspaper, Le
Figaro. Lebed suggested that the terrorist bombings in Russia were "the
result of an agreement between central authorities and (Chechen leader)
Basayev."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reacted to Lebed's statement with
sarcasm: "Those who make such claims could have gone further by saying that
we changed uniforms, attacked the Botlikhsky and Tsumadinsky districts and
took the loot back to Chechnya."
Is Gen. Lebed fed up with Moscow's games and determined to tell the truth?
Or is Gen. Lebed an irresponsible person who dares to slander his own
government because he wants to run for president?
Late last week Prime Minister Putin made an amusing statement that obliquely
supported Lebed's claim. Putin said that in Russia "nothing happens without
the government."
Garry Kasparov, the famous Russian chess champion, has also raised questions
about the crisis in Russia. Last week Kasparov suggested there was a
connection between the Bank of New York money-laundering scandal and the
wave of terrorist bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk. "We are asked to
believe," says Kasparov, "that the guerrillas, supported by the local
population, can fight a 70,000-strong regular army force. But the same TV
channels also present polls showing that 90 percent of Dagestanis wish to
remain part of Russia. ..."
Something is obviously wrong with this picture. The Islamic rebels do not
enjoy military ascendancy or popular support. They have no hope of winning.
What is their motive for attacking a territory that wants nothing to do with
them?
Kasparov says there are only two possible theories on the crisis in Russia.
Either Chechnya has become a center for international Islamic terrorism,
which is now directed against Russia, or the Russian secret police are
behind the bombings. As Kasparov notes, neither theory is easy to swallow.
The answer, he says, is to look at who benefits from the bombings. The
Islamic terrorists could gain nothing from such direct attacks on the
Russian people. But the Kremlin, says Kasparov, benefits greatly from the
bombings. "The terrorist attacks and North Caucasus conflict provided a
perfect diversion," says Kasparov.
However bad the Bank of New York scandal may be for the Kremlin, the extent
of the war preparations and military mobilizations in Russia suggest a more
strategic purpose than that alluded to by Kasparov. The leaders of the
Kremlin have often pretended to be our friends. Stalin made this pretense,
Brezhnev made this pretense, and so have Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But the
reality of Russia's hostile intentions is revealed in Russia's hostile
actions. Russia continues to ready its forces for a destructive war against
America.
Col. Stanislav Lunev, the highest ranking defector from the Main
Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, once told me that
he'd spent his military career preparing for a future world war against
America. That was the mission of the Russian and Soviet military.
America is a status quo power bent on defending the "global order." Russia
and China are poor countries who do not like this "global order." The
leaders of those countries are not interested in creating shopping mall
societies. They are interested in global dominion, even as they accuse us of
seeking the same thing. If the United States was actually serious about
dominating the globe we would never have given so many billions of dollars
to so many countries that hate us, and we would not have been so eager to
negotiate our own disarmament.
After World War II we disarmed, and after the Cold War we disarmed. Today
our nuclear forces, Army and Air Force have been reduced by two thirds. Our
fleet strength has been reduced by more than one third.
The history of the Cold War gives us the context for understanding the
mobilizations and maneuvers of the present day. It has been said in many
places, by many observers, that the present oligarchy in Russia is made up
of the same people who ruled the Soviet Union. That being the case, one
should not be surprised to find that the character of the Russian state has
not changed. Their purpose is the same today as it was under Stalin.
It is time for us to understand the present in light of the past. It is time
to wake up and get serious about defending this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins
of the Fourth World War.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
