Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sb1!mb2c!uofm-cv!janc From: janc@uofm-cv.UUCP (Jan Wolter) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Why are we at war with USSR? Message-ID: <533@uofm-cv.UUCP> Date: Sat, 24-Mar-84 18:01:40 EST Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.533 Posted: Sat Mar 24 18:01:40 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 07:13:01 EST Lines: 126 [A discussion of Soviet-American Relations and the causes of war] ***************************************************************** ** The following is based on a talk by Dr Henry J. Heimlich, ** ** liberally mixed with my own opinions. ** ***************************************************************** In considering the problems of Soviet American relations, we must start with the fundamental question, Why are we engaged in an arms race with the Soviets which seems to be inevitable leading to worldwide disaster? Curiously enough, it is rare to hear anyone raise this question, and rarer still for anyone to attempt to answer it. Most of the anti-nuclear protest here and in Europe is aimed directly at getting rid of the nuclear weapons. The the weapons are not the problem. The problem is the mutual hostility and distrust between the two most powerful nations in the world. Why? Is it because our forms of government are mutually incompatible? Hardly. We get on reasonably well with China and Yugoslavia, and seem to be good friends with several governments that make the Soviets look like saints. Historical antagonism? No, the Russians were our allies in both world wars. Heimlich believes that the reason we are at war with the Soviets, is the same reason that we went to war with the Germans and the Japanese, that is, for economic reasons. Japan was a tiny nation with a large and growing population. To live, Japan needed foreign trade. They needed to be able to import food and raw materials, and they needed foreign markets to sell their products in. However, the Europeans had shut them out of the mainland oriental markets and the Americans had shut them out of the Philippines. They had formed exclusive trade agreements, and enforced them with a naval presence. So, in desperation, the Japanese tried taking territory by military means. Similarly, Germany was virtually cut off from foreign trade before world war one by the European economic community. They too tried military means. When they failed, the Allies placed them in an economic straight-jacket worse than before, and, sure-enough, the explosion was worse than before. Americans tend to put the blame for world war two wholely on the charismatic maniac Hitler, but there were no charismatic maniacs leading world war one Germany, or world war two Japan. Both nations found themselves under externally applied economic pressures such that a war of conquest seemed the only viable alternative. After world war two, in a flash of genius, American undertook to rebuild the economies of Japan, Italy, and Germany. The Marshall Plan was a resounding success. Whatever you think of those nations today, we are not likely to go to war with them. Let us return then to Soviet-American relations. Though the Soviets were our allies in the second world war, we were suspicious of them. General Patton advocated attacking the Russians as soon as the Germans were finished off, while the military was still mobilized. Instead, we undertook a deliberate policy of isolation to halt the spread of the Red Plague. This was done in hopes that the Soviet government would quietly collapse, and, as the dust settled, the liberated Russian peasants would come and ask us to help them build a United States of Russia, so they could be free to celebrate the 4th of July with everyone else. Astounding though it seems, no one considered that we were placing the Soviet Union in the same sort of position the Germans and Japanese had been in, and no one noted that they were reacting the same way. The economic pressure we applied, did not cause the system to collapse. Instead, it warped into the only form of political structure which can withstand such conditions--a military dictatorship. The presence of nuclear weapons and a reasonably sane leadership on each side, has up to now, prevented actual war from breaking out between the Soviets and Americans, but the stress has polarized the globe, causing numerous minor wars and placing many third world countries in untenable positions. Yet the economic warfare continues. We severely limit trade with the Soviet Union, and demand from our allies to do the same. We to blockade moves by the Soviet to increase trade with Europe (e.g. the oil pipeline fiasco). Those trade agreements we make with the Soviets, we use to jerk them around like a dog on a leash (with grain yet). It's no wonder they're hostile. What we need to do, is to allow real, free trade with the Soviets. The American corporations are ready and waiting for the opportunity. The Soviets need our trade, but we need the Soviets too. The markets we have are either saturated with consumer goods, or are unable to pay for them. Our economy is stagnant, caught between unemployment and inflation. The Soviet Union is rich in resources, and can pay for what it buys. It is desperately in need of the technology we don't know what to do with. The Soviet Union and the United States are potentially the greatest trading partners in the history of the world. Certainly they will use some of their new found wealth to improve their weapons systems. But they have weapons enough to kill us all several times over already. Who gives a damn if they can kill us a few more times. If it really bugs you, we can use some of our new found wealth to improve ours too (surely you didn't think only the Soviets would be wealthier--you know our American corporations). Even if there are more and better bombs in the short term, the chances for peace would be infinitely better. Name any time in history where good trading partners have gone to war with each other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it won't work. What will be the ill effects? Do you think we can start a war by trading with the Soviets? How many people will be killed if it misfires? Certainly it's a much safer bet that continuing with the present insane policy of economic harassment. Maybe the world isn't ready for "Do onto others as you would have others do on to you," but surely we are able to "Do good for others for your own benefit." America is capable of making this decision. We proved it with the Marshall plan. We'll have to strip the above of some of the harsher criticism of past American policy to make it palatable, but it is a viable platform. Moreover, this is the time to do it. The Soviet Union is undergoing a change in leadership. When the new leaders appear they will very likely be willing to forget past American policys if we do not continue in the same course. We can hope that they will not, like the present leaders, be committed to an anti-American stance. It is not certain how much longer it will be before we are irrevocably committed to destruction. Let's do something now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The above is based on a talk by Dr Henry J. Heimlich, but is liberally salted with my own opinions. Dr Heimlich is the inventor of the "Heimlich Maneuver," (a procedure to help people choking on food particles) and of a variety of important surgical procedures. He is said to be responsible for saving more lives than any other man living. I was very impressed by his views, and would like to hear opinions on the above. Do you agree with the economic reasons for world war two? Is the above program viable? Would such a program have effects on the third world nations? Did I spell Heimlich right? (I heard this on the radio) Thank you. Jan Wolter (uofm-cv!janc) University of Michigan