I'm not sure what list this comes from, but I don't think it originated here, did it?
At any rate, you tell him CB. Moreover, what the German invasion of the SU didn't destroy, the Soviet Union themselves often had to destroy, so the Germans couldn't use it to prosecute the war on all fronts til total victory. Something the Allies ought to be damned glad about. It turned out to be a war of attrition on the eastern front, and the German armies collapsed, which then in turn limited their ability to defend against the US-UK-Canada invasion and western front. As for why the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact maintained a conventional arms buildup, it was, for one thing, part of a master strategy to call the US's and NATO's bluff on nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union would say that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons on any battlefield or in any strategic offensive. However, if nuclear weapons were used against any of their forces, retaliation would be overwhelming. The United States and NATO couldn't do that. They would say, if attacked conventionally and facing a loss, they would resort to the use of 'tactical' nuclear weapons in order to defend western Europe (leading to the sarcastic comment: What is a 'tactical' nuke? Any nuke the US decides to blow up in Europe). And underlying the conventional buildup was the Soviet Union knowing itself to be in the nuclear arms race (the US got the A-bomb first, the US got the H-bomb first, the US got the intercontinental bomber first, then the US got a bit behind once the Soviets had success with Sputnik, but the US went ahead in ICBM and SLBM technologies as well). The Soviet Union matched these technologies somewhat but preferred trying to maintain a quantitative lead in conventional weapons and basic combat arms soldiering. This is still Russia's strength. The US military prides itself on being the mightiest, but the fact is most of its money (our money, or the money we borrow from China, Japan, and the Gulf States) is spent on capabilities that have never been tested in any real battlefield. Iraq and Afghanistan showed if anything that most of this turns into junk if they do try to use it (like using M1 tanks to 'patrol'). The Russians can occupy a country because their military is deployed over a still very large country--that is, they occupy Russia. And how they would operate in principle and in reality has been better tested than most of what the US has, despite what Americans have been led to believe. What do you think the last invasions of Chechnya and Georgia were except the ultimate in live-fire exercises? What do you think Hezbollah's successful defense of S. Lebanon against the IDF tells Russians about very basic anti-tank and anti-vehicle missiles that can be operated by two man teams? (If Hezbollah can do it, Iran can do it even better, and Russia can do it 100 times over). You almost think the plan is for Russian Nationalists to wait for the US to collapse from bankruptcy and then for them to declare that they and China actually won the Cold War. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
