Hi Ron, Not nearly enough said I'm afraid. I think you are perpetuating two myths:
I think it was George Orwell who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Sadly, a whole generation has got its perceptions of the Second World War from Hollywood. Many in Europe and America don't even know of Russia's involvement in the war and assume that they were fighting against the allies! Myth No.1: The war in Europe was basically over in mid 1943, almost a year before the Normandy landings. The decisive battles were all fought in Russia (Stalingrad, siege of Moscow, siege of Leningrad, Battle of Kursk etc.). In the siege of Leningrad alone an estimated 700,000 people perished. The war culminated in the Battle of Kursk in July 1943. It was the biggest tank battle in history, yet is known about by few in the west. After this decisive battle the war was basically over in Europe, in the sense that the Germans were always on the defensive from then on, and the Russians could have won without the Americans or British. It would of course have taken longer. American equipment given to Russia under the Lend Lease program was an important factor early on in the war but was less so as Russian production of armaments moved east. Still, we owe a great debt to the American and British soldiers who died in this war. We often rightly acknowledge that debt. We seldom acknowledge the even greater debt we owe the Russian people!!! During the decisive battle on the western front, The Battle of the Bulge, the Germans had the majority of their troops in the Eastern Front, in Russia.. During the war the Russians lost an estimated 20 million people. This was almost 10% of their population. It tended to colour their perception of Europe from then on!! It is also important to remember that Russia had been invaded by Europe in 1914 and in 1919/20 also. Three times in 30 years!!! There was also still the folk memory of Napoleon's invasion in 1812. Myth No.2: At the end of the war Russia was determined that they wouldn't be invaded again. (Remember that this was thought to be a possibility; the US General, Patton, wanted to go on and attack Russia to "finish" the war.) The Russians therefore decided to form a buffer zone of satellite states around its borders just as Israel did with south Lebanon in the early 80's. This obviously led to tensions with the other super powers and you had the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact after that. This in turn led to the Cold War and an arms race which the Russians needed like a hole in the head. Their country was devastated and needed reconstruction urgently. The US emerged from the war practically unscathed and as the only remaining superpower "with 50% of the world's wealth, but only 3% of its population". Russia realised early on that it could never compete successfully with the economic might of the US and therefore sought to end the Cold War as early as 1952. They proposed that Germany be re-united but remain neutral with no conditions attached to its economic policies and guaranteeing "the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press and the free activity of democratic parties." The US replied that a re-united Germany would have to be free to join NATO. This was a demand that the US knew Russia could not accept. The US needed the Cold War to keep its population scared. This helped to keep what Eisenhower described as the "military industrial complex" happy. It's also interesting to note that Eisenhower thought that fears of a Russian invasion of Europe were "the product of paranoid imaginations". It has to be said that elements of the Russian regime also found the Cold War handy in keeping their population in line too. They of course had their own "military industrial" complex. The Russians made several more attempts to end the Cold War but were rebuffed time and again by the US, (see Noam Chomsky's DETERRING DEMOCRACY). The above may seem to be overly generous to the Russians. They were of course quite brutal in their occupation of their satellite states. All empires are brutal and their actions are mostly reprehensible in their colonies. It is interesting to compare the colonies of the US and the Russian colonies during the 1980's however. The Russian colonies were bleeding Russia dry whereas the US colonies in South America were hugely profitable for the US economy. The Soviet Union poured about 80 billion dollars into Eastern Europe during the 1970's. According to the New York Times transfers to the West from Latin America from 1982 to 1987 amounted to 150 billion dollars. Also, what would have happened to Vaclev Havel or Lech Walesa (PolishTrade Union leader), if they had advocated free elections and free trade unions in El Salvador or Guatemala during the 1980's? They would have ended up disembowelled somewhere on the outskirts of town! Regards Dermot -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ron Sent: 04 June 2005 10:13 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang I can see this is going no where so I will leave it with one final bit of food for thought . If it were not for the US defense budget and over a million American lives, there would only be 2 languages spoken it all of Europe, German and Russian. And all of Asia would be speaking Japanese. Oh How soon they forget. Nuff said. Keith Addison wrote: > Well, well... > > I'm aware this will probably chuck the cat in with the pigeons but I'm > undeterred. It's not directed at anyone in particular. > > This discussion could only happen in America, while the rest of us (that > is, most of us) look on bemused. An American list member who demands > respect for his views on the basis of his military service will not get > that respect from the majority of list members, and he ought to be aware > of that. From some he might get the very opposite of respect. For me, > it's simply not significant. It doesn't even mean he necessarily knows > better, on the contrary, it could as easily mean he's incapable of > seeing it straight. > > Where else in the world is military service placed on such a pedestal of > pride? Where else is the military held in such high esteem? I don't wish > to be insulting, but the only possibilities that come to mind are > perhaps China, or North Korea, and maybe South Korea to an extent, > because of North Korea - but at least they have a real enemy (and the > last thing they want is to fight it out). Food for thought, no? > > One then has to ask, where else in the world does the military get such > a grotesquely huge slice of the budget? (China? North Korea?) Especially > of such a huge budget. And why? The Cold War ended 15 years ago. Grotesque? > >> ... U.S. military spending, in billions of dollars per day: 1.08 >> >> Ratio of U.S. military spending to the combined military budgets of >> Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria: 26 to 1 >> >> Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 1985: 31 >> >> Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 2000: 36 > > > Yes, grotesque. Is this something to be admired? > > Look at these figures: > > Debt relief for the 20 worst affected countries would cost between US > $5.5 billion to $7.7 billion, less than the cost of ONE stealth bomber. > > Basic education for all would cost $6 billion a year; > - $8 billion is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone. > > Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 billion plus > some annual costs; > - $11 billion is spent annually on ice cream in Europe. > > Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 billion a year; > - $12 billion a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States. > > Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 billion; > - $17 billion a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States. > > $35 billion is spent on business entertainment in Japan; > $50 billion on cigarettes in Europe; > $105 billion on alcoholic drinks in Europe; > $400 billion on narcotic drugs around the world; and > $780 billion on the world's militaries. > > -- From: Globalization Facts and Figures > http://learningpartnership.org/facts/global.phtml > > It's not something to be admired. Yet Americans are so proud of it. > > A majority of Americans thinks the US spends 24% of its budget on > foreign aid instead of the actual figure, less than 1% - and most of > that is "tied" to direct US benefit. And then there's this: > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8888.htm > $1 trillion missing : Military waste under fire > 05/18/05 "San Francisco Chronicle" > (Among other things, they LOST 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin > missile command launch-units.) > > Grotesque and bizarre. > > I'm not "bashing" the US, I'm not even trying to stop the discussion - > please, go ahead, thrash it out, no problem. But please be aware of how > peculiarly American it is. Pondering that a bit might add some > perspective which might otherwise be lacking. > > A couple of other things to ponder. Vietnam vets, or some of them > anyway, seem to have a rather different view of military service. I'm > reminded of a previous discussion here involving Vietnam vets when one > of them boasted about the Purple Heart he'd won. Have a look in the > archives if you like. > > Why are benefits for soldiers' families being cut, and those for > disabled soldiers too, IIRC, even as their numbers are soaring? Does the > government they serve accord them the same respect their fellow > Americans do? Are they perhaps just dispensable cannon-fodder, to be > cashed in for a few votes or for the sake of a suspect ideology or > perhaps for Haliburton's bottom line? Is all this respect perhaps making > such things a lot easier than they should be? Is it misplaced? Is the > military and military service a false sacred cow? How many US lawmakers > have sons or daughters serving with the military in Iraq? One, wasn't it? > > Best wishes > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
