me: > The old USSR was imperialist, > though its imperialism (like that of ancient Rome) was of a different > style. The USSR treated E. Europe primarily as military pawns, as a > military/cultural/political buffer zone. It wasn't a matter of > (narrowly-defined) economic exploitation.
Charles: > But "Eastern" Europe had been part of the German invasion of the USSR... The > Soviets had good reason and right to put "Eastern" Europe on ice. Sure, just because it made sense from the Soviet elite's point of view does not mean that it made sense from the Eastern European perspective. It made sense (to its elite) for the USSR, for example, to institute "regime change" in Czechoslovakia in 1968. After all, democratic transformation might upset the applecart, spreading change or at least unrest to Poland, Hungary, etc. But it didn't make sense to the Czechs and Slovaks. Similarly, it made sense to the US elite to invade the Dominican Republic in 1965, for example. After all, progressive nationalists were threatening to upset the applecart, especially since workers were getting weapons. It was possible that the entire Caribbean area would be destabilized. But it didn't make sense to the Dominicans. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
