A great irony of that "we will bury you" line
is that indeed the substance and specifics behind
it involved forecasts that the USSR would surpass
the US in the production of such things as steel,
cement, wheat, and oil, obvious signs of the
glories of command central planning. The funny
thing is that the USSR did indeed surpass the US
in all of those, but....
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7647] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>> 2) Did not George Kennan in his original anonymous
>>article on containment raise the possibility of an eventual
>>evolution of the Soviet system as a response?
>
>IIRC, yes. And that was one reason that the policy was originally
>supposed to be one of "containment" and not of "confrontation."
>
>> >You say, further, that Soviets were ideologically optimistic and
>>>triumphalist through at least the Khrushchev era, maybe through the
1960s.
>>>Ian would extend that through 1986. I think this is not true. K did
believe
>>>that "we will bury you," but he was quite clear that he was a great fan
of
>>>peaceful coexistence, and the triumph of communism would come through
proof
>> >of its economic superiority--not military force.
>
>I had always thought that that phrase was a mistranslation. "We will
>bury you" implies that we will do something to cause your demise, and
>then gleefully fill in the grave above your coffin. IIRC, the Russian
>is much more "we will outlive you."
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>
