So was the second: it was good for the USSR to have a friendly country in
the hemisphere. What wouldn't have been in the USSR's interests was nuclear
war, but Khr didn't think that Kennedy was wacko enough to risk it over a
deployment that was the mirror image of the US deployment of Jupiters to
Turkey. Wrong! The US was ideological. The USSR, forunately for us all, was
not; Khr was a grownup, and for that you can thank the stars and old Nikita
every time you draw a breath. --jks
> With regard to the Cuban missile crisis, it is
>perhaps worth noting that there were at least two
>motives for Khrushchev putting the missiles in
>Cuba. One was to respond to the US having put
>missiles in Turkey. The other was in response to
>pressure from Castro who we now know was begging]
>for him to put them in to help protect Castro from
>invasion from the US. The first of these was certainly
>very clearly in the USSR's national interest.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:05 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7682] Re: Soviet Union foreign policy
>
>
> >The USSR quite sensibly backed off from nuclear war with the US over
> >Cuba--Khrushchev, unlike Kennedy, having more brains than testosterone.
>The
> >bet, not a crazy one, though wrong, in putting missiles in Cuba, was that
> >the US would respond sanely without postering. The assertion that the
>USSR
> >had an internationalist foreign policy is unsupported, and also nonsense.
> >The USSR supported national liberation and socialism where it conformed
>to
> >Soviet natioan interests, and not where not. Stalin himself crushed the
> >Spanish revolutioon. He sold Greece and tried to sell Yugo to the West at
> >Yalta. He established an imperial buffer zone in East Europe that was
> >maintained by force in Berlin, Hungary, Czecho, and Poland. I could go
> >on.Soviet foreign policy is only internationalist for someline like you,
> >Charles, who identifies the interests of the world working class with
>those
> >of the Soviet state. The USSR was not a _capitalist_ exploiter, but it
>wasa
> >traditional great power in its foreign relations, looking to the narrow
> >national interests of the state, not to the interests of a wider group,
> >such as the working class. --jks
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>After the mid 20's, you can
> >>get a lot further in predicting Soviet foreign policy using a straight
>line
> >>national interest calculation than an ideological one.
> >>
> >>((((((((((
> >>
> >>CB: How was almost going to nuclear war with the U.S. over Cuba in the
> >>Soviet narrow national interest ? How was one way economic support to
>Cuba
> >>and other countries in Soviet national interest ?
> >>
> >>The SU had internationalist foreign policy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Sure, the USSR supported some national liberation movements--that is one
>of
> >>the few half-way decent things it did. But it never did that when it
>didn't
> >>seem that this would not further great power goals.
> >>
> >>(((((((((((
> >>
> >>CB: The SU didn't act like a capitalist great power. It didn't have
> >>colonies , i.e. economically exploitative relations with the other
> >>socialist and socialist path nations
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
