Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reply to Tim Sevener re: US armed strength.
Message-ID: <843@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 10:31:40 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.843
Posted: Mon Nov 25 10:31:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:54:52 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <362@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 81

I have pointed out some of this in another article, but let me repeat
an elementary history lesson for Mike Stalnaker to answer
his questions on the Soviets in Eastern Europe:
>  
> >If the Soviet Union is so set upon "world conquest" why is it that
> >they haven't invaded the small Communist countries of 
> >Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania for the past 40 years?
> >Rumania had 30,000 people in a demonstration against missile deployments
> >by both East and West.  Why hasn't the Soviet Union nuked Rumania yet?
> >Since Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Albania are not members of NATO the
> >USSR would have no opposition to attack from NATO forces in these
> >countries.
> >Why did the Soviets agree to allow Austria to return to sovereignty
> >decades ago?
> >              "Peace in the World,
> >                        or the World in Pieces!"
> >                tim sevener  whuxn!orb
> 
> 	This is the part I have the real argument with. What about
> Hungary, Chezklosvokia(sp?), Berlin, Afghanastan, North Vietnam, Poland,
> and Laos just to name a few? All taken either with the direct
> involvement of Soviet troops, or Milatary assistance.  To say that the
> Soviet Union is not attempting eventual world conquest is to deny the
> that Marx and Lenin ever existed.  World conquest has been a part of the
> Soviet Conquest ever since the Revolution.      
> 
> 	Mike Stalnaker
 
The reason the Soviets currently dominate Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
and East Germany dates to World War II.  It is generally forgotten by
Americans now (a recent NYT survey showed this true to such an extent
a sizeable percentage of Americans thought we fought *against* the Soviets
in WW II!!) but the fact is that the Soviets suffered more casualties in
WW II than any other nation - 20 million Soviets died.  Hitler threw
a major portion of his tanks and resources against the Soviets and 
initially, like so many previous invaders, sliced through Russia like
a hot knife through butter.  The Soviets kept requesting the Allies to
open up a second front to divert Hitler from the War in the East.  
They did not do so until D-Day.  Meanwhile the Soviets finally threw
back Hitler and at the end of the War they were regaining Eastern
Europe from the Nazis in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria.
Some countries, such as Yugoslavia with Tito and Rumania, had their
own independent resistance forces which defeated the Nazis. Because
these countries did have their own independent forces the Soviets never
marched in: the Nazis were already defeated.
As the Soviets defeated the Nazis in these countries they established
Occupation governments, just as the US later did in West Germany and
Japan.  Stalin also carted away whole factories from these fairly
industrialized countries in Eastern Europe for Soviet development.
Agreements were made which were supposed to allow for the establishment
of Parliamentary democracies in these occupied countries.  However the
Soviets put all their weight behind native Communist Parties which
at that time were quite subservient to Moscow as the "leader of
World Revolution".  Backed by Soviet power, these Communist parties
destroyed any semblance of "democracy" or balance of powers and
instead established regimes in the Stalinist style.
Thus what were initially to be transitory "Occupation" governments
became established governments.  To an extent one could say the US
did the same thing in Japan - Japan's government has been greatly
influenced by the model setup during the American occupation.  However
it is in some respects a far better model of government. (In some
respects not)
Because the Communist parties which came to power in these countries
achieved power solely on the basis of Soviet patronage, they have
generally *not* been very independent.  One should also note that
it is not just the Communist party itself which
owes its power to Soviet patronage but that *segment* of the Communist
party willing to be subservient to Moscow and Stalin.  Which was not
necessarily all, nor certainly not the brightest and most promising
segment of the indigenous Communist Party in these regions.
 
The one notable exception to this tendency of the Soviets to establish
client regimes under local Communist parties was Austria: the Soviets
withdrew their occupying forces from Austria under terms which
provided for Austrian neutrality and nonparticipation in either
NATO or the Warsaw Pact.  Since then Austria has had a Parliamentary
democracy generally electing moderate democratic socialists.
If you don't believe me, I suggest you look it up in any history
book dealing in depth with this subject.
              tim sevener   whuxn!orb