----- Original Message -----
From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: The Fall of Communism RE: The Evils of Communism (was RE:
American Attitudes)
> At 03:08 PM 5/26/01 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >No one in their right mind would think that the USSR was an economic
> >challenger to the US in the '70s.
>
> Then why weren't all these people "in their right mind" publishing books,
> giving scholarly lectures, and working for the major world governments?
>
Because that's not where we were losing. We outspend them 10-1 in a country
and lost the war. That wasn't the question. The question was who the world
would follow.
> Did so few of the authors, professors, and intillegence experts of the day
> not have access to this information?
The immediate collapse was not seen. The lack of growth was. In hindsight
it is clear, but it wasn't at the time.
> I mean, how many books, editorials, papers, lectures, etc. are out there
> from the 1970's with great titles like:
> "Why Worry? The Soviet Union is Doomed to Collapse."
> "The Cold War - The Inevitable Ending"
Because, during the 60s and 70s, we would have to send tons of troops to
counter local communist groups, when they didn't have to send troops outside
of E. Europe to maintain control. The governments we were supporting in the
third world were becoming inceasingly unpopular.
>
> If shortages, long queues, and general economic ineptness are a predictor
> of governmental collapse, how do you explain North Korea? It seems that
> one does *not* necessarily portend the other.
They don't necessarily. But, North Korea is not really a credable threat to
S. Korea now. The collapse was predicted in '48, BTW. It was bipartisan
policy and it worked.
>
> >But, the fact that ordinary bright Russians usually politely put
> >off accepting invitations to join the Communist Party, as my house guest
of
> >several years ago told me that he and his friends did, showed something
was
> >amiss. Why would people turn down a chance to be in the upper echelon of
> >society?
>
> Perhaps a few moral disagreements with promoting the Party? A general
> dislike of going to social events with corrupt, if not evil, people?
>
Well, that does point out the problems with that type of government. Add
incompetent to the list. The uncertainty in the '70s were the product of the
first lost war by the US (1812 was a draw) and the feeling that we somehow
strayed away from who we were. When we reaffirmed our belief in self
determination by refusing to intervene on behalf of a corrupt government
with a secret police, then we gained the second. When the USSR invaded
Afganastan, they sealed their doom. We could afford to outspend them 10-1.
They could not afford to outspend us 10-1.
It is quite possible that we needed to find battles to win to expung the
ghosts of Viet Nam. The Gulf War did that, and since there was a UN mandate
to liberate Kuwait, it didn't violate our belief system.
Dan M.
Dan M.
