| |
I have been meaning to come back to this for some time
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Lar said:
> > Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> > aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
>
> No more so than any other system of governance (and perhaps less,
> given the "have-not" economics from which Communist movements
> drew most of their early strength). The whole "exported world
> revolution" spiel got quietly socked away in 1922, and aside from
> the 1939-1940 USSR wars and Tibet I can't think of a single case of
> "territorial aggrandizement" that doesn't involve a chunk that
> tried to break away during the change in government (e.g., Taiwan,
> Ukraine, etc). The "communist bloc" of the Cold War doesn't count
> any more than the Marshall Plan and NATO count as examples of
> "Capitalist territorial aggrandizement."
I am going to differ with you on this point. The Warsaw Pact nations, as far
as I am concerned, during the period up until about 1989 or so, were so
effectively under the control of the USSR that they were territorialy
aggrandized. They may have had separate flags and votes in the UN but they
took direct orders from the USSR and, historian or no, to assert otherwise
is to be delusional. (1)
The fact that the US and other allies were foolish enough to cede these
territories to Stalin without a fight is irrelevant.
The NATO block nations were never dominated by the US. Certainly not
anywhere near the level of domination of the Warsaw Pact nations. Not even
close. Putting strings on aid is NOTHING like forcing miners to mine coal at
gunpoint so it can be shipped east to Russia.
Let's repeat that. We *gave* aid, billions of dollars worth. The USSR
stripped the countries of the pact to prop up their regime. Not just
Germany, but the entire region, victims and losers alike.
I have *personal* knowledge of that, because, to my shame, my uncle was part
of the ruling apparatus, he cast his lot in with the USSR after the war and
rose to be a mid level functionary in the DDR communist party and mayor of a
small town, and my mother saw it happen.
> Revolution isn't
> territorial aggrandizement, even if it's sponsored and promoted
> by a traceable source (again, something the West has been far
> better at than the East since the 1700s).
OK. But there was no revolution in Poland or Hungary or East Germany. What
there was was an imposition of a new power structure from outside
1 - My beef with history and historians is that just because it is believed
to be so by historians doesn't make it so. Standard Oil was a great evil.
The Wild West was a violent place. Capitalism caused the great depression
and Roosevelt pulled us out. The USSR wasn't an evil empire. All false. But
saying that something is invalid because you didn't have personal experience
of it is way overstating.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Wow, has .o-t.debate become the busiest ng on LUGNET? I think it's very possible. (...) As it sort of answers your note, I'll make the very important point that not ONE serious historian (outside of those in the USSR and some of its satellites (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your personal values are based on individualism instead of the common good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's a self-replicating system, IMHO. (...) No more so (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
