Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: the Monolithic Communist Conspir
Message-ID: <7800736@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 23:50:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800736
Posted: Sun Nov 24 23:50:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:12:22 EST
References: <841@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 127
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-84100:inmet:7800736:000:6063
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 24 23:50:00 1985


[ tim sevener whuxn!orb]
>> > 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?

>> We will note that Tim omitted Hungary from his list.  [Tom Hill]

As well as Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.
 
>My point was not that the Soviets are totally innocent of any charges
>of aggression, manipulation or dominance of other nations.  My point
>was that there is a major difference between their actions after
>World War II to retain the countries they won from the Nazis as a
>buffer zone to prevent such attacks in the future and the right-wing
>hysteria which paints the Soviets as out to conquer every nation in
>the world and make it a Soviet Socialist Republic.

That buffer zone logic is precisely the recipe for infinite
expansion: you need a new buffer to guard your existing buffer etc.
Wouldn't the whole of Europe be a wonderful buffer ? But the best
buffer is the globe.

>The latter is typically couched in terms of the "monolithic Communist
>Conspiracy" in which the Soviets represent a monolithic Communism
>arrayed against a "free and democratic" West.

>One would think that after China's break with the Soviet Union and
>Nixon's trip to China that such myths were dead forever.  But they
>have too much power as  justifications for the military-industrial
>complex to be discarded. 

Never heard, or read *anyone* saying that. Reagan's "evil empire"
rhetoric was specifically directed at the USSR. 

This is not a myth, but a *meta-myth* :  a  myth  about  the  ex-
istence  of  a myth. (No, I don't mean invented by you, Tim: I've
heard it before).

>As one examines the actual history of Communism in various countries
>one finds that those countries in which indigenous movements came to
>power (e.g. China, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Albania for example)
>have each developed their own foreign policies independent of
>Moscow.  On the other hand, those countries such as Hungary, Poland,
>Czechoslovakia, and East Germany which were conquered from the Nazis
>by the Soviets during World War II, *have* had Communism imposed
>from without and maintained primarily by Soviet power.

True for the examples you quote. Exceptions: Rumania whose foreign
policy, though not independent, has slight deviations, and Cuba,
whose foreign policy, once somewhat autonomous, deviates now less
than that of Rumania. The fact that there *is* a Soviet division
stationed in Cuba but none in Rumania and that Cuban secret police
is supervised by Soviet "advisers" while Rumanian isn't, may have
something to do with it.

>It is interesting to note that each of  these  countries,  except
>for  East  Germany, have had nationalistic revolts against Soviet
>domination.  Hungary revolted in 1956,  Czechoslovakia  in  1968,
>and  Poland in 1980-81. 

Factual correction: East Germany did revolt, in 1953.
Poland revolted three times: 1956, 1970 and 1980.
 
>This is important to understand for several reasons:
>  1)military significance - the Soviets know that the members of
>    the Warsaw Pact are very reluctant members of that Pact.
>    Indeed, Rumania is nominally a member of the Warsaw Pact
>    but allows no Soviet soldiers on its soil and refuses to
>    participate in any Warsaw Pact exercises.  Constant recitation
>    of the number of tanks possessed by the Warsaw Pact ignores
>    the way in which Warsaw Pact members would be extremely likely
>     to drag their heels in any conflict.

But these tanks are mostly in  *Soviet*  hands.  Also,  the  most
*modern* weapons are. The other members are not an important part
of the equation, except as an economic resourse.

>  2)it is simply *UNTRUE* that every Communist or Socialist 
>    country is necessarily a tool of Soviet domination.  

Of course. The same meta-myth.

But where the Soviet domination *does* appear, they
insist on exporting their system as well as their influence.
Not all Communist countries are their satellites, or allies -
but all their allies are satellites, and Communist.
Thus, Communism is not *irrelevant* to Soviet expansion.

>We tend to make this prophecy come true by driving every indepen-
>dent Socialist movement into the Soviet camp: i.e.  Cuba 20 years
>ago, and Nicaragua toda

Now this *driving* explanation *is* a myth: both Cuba and Nicaragua
had *plenty* of opportunities to avoid a break with USA. 

It *is* in the USA interest to support the independence  of  Com-
munist  countries  bordering the Soviet empire, such as China and
Yugoslavia. And so it does. But a  Communist  regime  far  away
from  Russia feels far more threatened by its own population than
by Soviet domination - so it accepts such domination, in one form
or  another,  as  a  guarantee of its rule (Warsaw pact regimes
also accept it, but *they* have no choice). Historically, this is
analogous to the Holy Alliance. Today, it is called the  Brezhnev
Doctrine. The USA cannot offer them *that*, so there is no chance
of them switching sides.

Let me summarize:
Communism and Soviet expansion are two different problems.
Both are problems, and they have a connection.
The Soviets are not madly expansionist: but they are expansionist.
They use opportunities. WWII was a great one; others came before
and after, and they were used.
Very moderate amount of resistance is enough  to  prevent  Soviet
expansion;  but  it  must be unflagging. Also, there is no reason
for *US* to accept Brezhnev doctrine and consider previous Soviet
accretions sacrosanct. Opportunity can work both ways.  Today its
names are: Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan. In each  case,  the
*moral* course is the same as the *prudent* course.

Oh, and one more thing. Chances of disarmament are REAL. The rea-
son:  the  state  of Soviet economy. They'll probably have to cut
armament growth *with or without* a treaty, though it is terribly
hard  for  them politically because of the military influence. As
for the summit, it did what it could: i.e., nothing.

		Jan Wasilewky