Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site dolqci.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!dolqci!mike
From: mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reply to Tim Sevener re: US armed strength.
Message-ID: <346@dolqci.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 13:46:47 EST
Article-I.D.: dolqci.346
Posted: Wed Nov 27 13:46:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:10:48 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <362@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker)
Organization: U.S. Dept of Labor, ETA/UI Quality Control
Lines: 47

In article <843@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>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.

>> 	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............
> 
>The reason the Soviets currently dominate Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
>and East Germany dates to World War II................................

	Followed by a synopsis of the basic politics in Eastern Europe
which explains why the governments which exist there now are there..

(Tim, I tried to keep the key parts of you statements above, if I goofed
the editing,etc please say something. I edited only for the sake of
size- M.S.) 

	Tim's synopsis of the political and strategic situation at the
end of World War II are accurate, and I compliment him on both theri
accuracy and conciseness. However, I was speaking of the Berlin
Blockade, the Invasion of Afghanastan, the Milatary backing of North
Vietnam, the recent sabre-rattling along the Polish Border, the
Invasion of Hungary and Chzk. (I won't even attempt to spell it again
, as I don't have a dictonary around).  Tim, you did not address a
single one of these.  If the East Germans choose to be a member of the
Communist Block OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, so be it.  I talking about the
countries which have been forced into the fold or are currently be
forceably kept there, against the will of the people.  
-- 
	Mike Stalnaker
	uucp: {seimso,hao,decvax!decuac}!dolqci!mike
	arpa: mike%dolqci.uucp@seismo.css.gov

	"You can have peace, or you can have Freedom.  Never count on
	 having both at the same time." --Lazarus Long