" Last century produced Hitler and Stalin. "...
Canada stood hard and strong at the earliest in the battle against Hitler.
As for Stalin :
< snip >
washingtonpost.com
Many questions must be asked in connection with leaders other than Stalin: What were the specific attitudes and activities of Stalin's lieutenants--such as Molotov, Zhdanov, Beria, and Malenkov--during the first years of the Cold War? What were Nikita Khrushchev's motivations throughout the international crises of 1953-1962? What can explain Khrushchev's inconsistent performance in the international arena and his eccentric escapades in his relations with Western powers? What about the Asian front of the Cold War? Was a split between Khrushchev's USSR and Mao Zedong's China just a clash of personalities, or can it be attributed to fundamentally different approaches by the leadership of the two countries toward key international issues? Should we regard the Sino-Soviet schism simply as a matter of bilateral relations or should we put it into a broad Cold War perspective?
Another major issue concerns the extent to which the Soviet Union wanted the Cold War. Without a doubt the imperial tradition of Russia, reinforced by Marxist globalism, predestined Soviet expansionism. But the Cold War emerged from the ruins of World War II, and this hard fact raises three problems. First, there was the issue of the appropriate rewards for the Soviet contribution to the war. Of paramount importance in Europe and recognized as such by Britain and the United States, the Soviet war effort had almost unimaginable costs. More than twenty-seven million people died--the majority of them young men between the ages of eighteen and thirty, but also women and children. The European sphere of the USSR was devastated by the German war machine. Shouldn't Stalin's leadership expect special treatment from Western powers after such a sacrifice? And how did this expectation affect Soviet relations with the West after 1945--be it concerning economic assistance (generous reparations from Germany, direct American aid) or recognized spheres of influence for the Soviet Union in Europe (each territory--Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia--having been fertilized with Soviet blood)?
Second, given the scale of human and material losses, the Soviet Union, though it had troops almost all over Eurasia from Germany to Manchuria, could not sustain the stress of another war. In this respect, it is hard to imagine that Stalin could have deliberately chosen to pursue brinkmanship with the West. The nuclear disability of the Soviet Union in 1945-1949 also argues for the belief that Stalin's original intention of 1945-1947 was to proceed with some kind of partnership with the West.
Third, there was the issue of complete Soviet cooperation with the United States and Britain during the war. The tension this cooperation often engendered did not preclude a search for solutions and even unilateral concessions on both sides. Stalin disbanded the Comintern in 1943; Roosevelt and Churchill formally recognized the Soviet zone of security in Eastern Europe in 1943-1945.(7) Could Stalin have believed that this intense interaction was to end abruptly as soon as the war was won? Or did this new mode of understanding based upon mutual compromise imply postwar cooperation? Could Stalin--especially given his fascination with the Russian imperial past--envisage some sort of jointly managed system of international relations, not unlike that which followed the Napoleonic Wars? We do have evidence that Stalin identified himself with Alexander I, a victorious emperor and a postwar partner of his wartime allies at the Vienna Congress of 1815.
>>Who knows what this one will produce. In a decade or two things may look radically different than they do now.<<
I humbly submit that if America continues on its present path under Bush, or others who may have similar confused and heavily influenced idealogies,deviating drastically from what had brought relative " peace in our time " , I have little doubt that it will take much less than a decade or two to unravel what had been sown togeather for the past quarter century.Evidence of radical shifts emerges practically daily, for those willing and able to observe the World though optics not blurred by the very ideologues who create the illusions.
" Oil is peaking, "..
Production may actually be in decline,while consumption continues to grow.Canada is now, and will likely continue to be, a net exporter of energy, most of which goes to our friends South of our boarder, who are guaranteed primary access to our energy surpluses under NAFTA, with companies having been bought outright and development mostly welcome from our American friends….mostly…<GGG>
" China and India are emerging, "....
Yes,through the free access to our markets given as members of the WTO , and a trend that dictates ultra-capitalist agendas in producing goods and services in the most cost effective manner, in ANY country those globalists determine to be an advantage.
The concept that Henry Ford forged, has been long forgotten in the wake of the " profits at any cost " program currently being pushed by the Republican bolstered ultra-capitalists in America, and is now pressuring most countries and businesses to do pretty much the same to remain competitive.
Canada has had mixed outcomes,some gains..some loses,in this evolution,and only a lower currency,a productive workforce, energy and resource advantages and a good educational system has allowed us to remain somewhat on an even keel though out this era.Our unemployment rate is still above seven percent , but the brainwashers in this country will have us believe that this number should be lauded....go figure...
" we may get an abrupt mini-ice age, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the US can no longer afford to be the world policeman (Iraq proved that conclusively) ... "...
But the Bush administration is either pushing America or leading the world down this very path you so fear!Breaking long standing and progressive programs of non proliferation while shrugging its responsibility to Global environmental issues like KYOTO, are some of the main ingredients in that which you fear ,and I see no advantage in maintaining the current military levels if that perceived advantage is nullified by creating the conditions that may make them necessary.
" (Iraq proved that conclusively) "...
Iraq was not and is not a proving ground for military might in its defensive or offensive stance ,but more of a test of resolve towards a questionable foreign policy.Iraq under Saddam had never attacked America directly,and was well contained by the US and British who received ample compensation for their efforts from Iraq's neighbours.They were hired guns ,mercenaries , or an outsourced police force , if you will, protecting both their interests and those of their supposed allies.
>>I don't think we have seen the end of history.<<
Indeed...but what kind of history does the " World's Only SuperPower " want to write going forward,and does it expect each and every democratic nation on earth to simply follow its foreign policy agenda and wage war on those deemed a threat, even through questionable evidence and an ever starkly apparent foreign policy that does not come across as necessary for peace,but necessary to permeate an unending war.
We will have little of this,thank you, when we perceive the world’s policeman may be creating the conditions that require the very existence of this supra-police-force .
KC |
