Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 20:55:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Grossman <SGROSSMAN-AT-umassd.edu> Subject: Re: Marxism and academia Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 15:23:17 +0800 (PST) From: hfspc002-AT-huey.csun.edu Subject: RE: Marxism and academia >>Stephen Grossman writes: "Stalin and those who followed him created the >>largest, fastest growing empire in history, one which, by 1980, was >>capable of winning WW3 with merely 20 million dead Soviet citizens. My >>guess is that Marxist leaders want to use this military supremacy to >>strengthen (with its threat) the ongoing active measures and >>disinformation which is opening Western polities to revolutionary >>politics." >While I agreed with some of the post, I think this statement is the >reading of history that the Reagan administration and the Pentagon would >have had us believe in the 80s. The Soviet Union was never able to "win" >World War 3, in Europe or anywhere else. Conservatives claimed the SU was a threat which required a bigger US military. For the most part they did not claim the threat was overwhelming, a claim with unpredictable election effects. More importantly, US Pragmatists (with exceptions) based foreign policy on compromise and deterrence, not defense. Marxist leaders have understood this for decades and have used it to manipulate US foreign policy discussions. See Mao, Stalin, Ho. Sokolovski's _Sov Military Strategy_, 3rd ed., is regarded by Western defense analysts as perhaps the only excellent military strategy of this century. It is a description of global nuclear war victory. US nuclear military doctrine is based on deterrence; Soviet nuc mil doctrine is based on fighting and winning. Most US missiles are aimed, re MAD, at Sov civilians, a worthless end the homeland. Most Sov missiles are aimed at US military and we have no anti-strategic missile missiles, not SDI, not even possible lo-tech anti-missile missiles (except for irrelevant tactical ones). The Sovs could first-strike the US military, with 250,000 deaths. The US would retaliate against, mainly Sov civilians, and a serious civil defense. The Sov leadership, political, security, military, industrial(!) would survive. Many Sov industrial plants would survive. Sov civil defense is extremely expensive and led by a generaon dead in WW2. They, being altruists and, accept sacrifice for society, and have the lesson of Stalin (and Lenin) in the practicality of mass deaths to further the revolution. Now, the Sov 2nd nuc strike capacity would work. They would realistically threaten 150? million US civilian deaths if the US did not surrender. Ev The Sovs could first-strike the US military, with 250,000 deaths. The US would retaliate against, mainly Sov civilians, and a serious civil defense. The Sov leadership, political, security, military, industrial(!) would survive. Many Sov industrial plants would survive. Sov civil defense is extremely expensive and led by a generaon dead in WW2. They, being altruists and, accept sacrifice for society, and have the lesson of Stalin (and Lenin) in the practicality of mass deaths to further the revolution. Now, the Sov 2nd nuc strike capacity would work. They would realistically threaten 150? million US civilian deaths if the US did not surrender. Even if the Us President was not Pragmatist, his military situation would be hopeless. Sov nuc mil power has been greatly expanded since Gorbachev and even since the dialectical 1991 (1989?) end of Sov Marxism. The Sov mil budget has increased. The KGB has quietly reformed (dialectical splitting and unity) and many Marxists have returned to hi-level power in many places, by some count, 22 nations or regions. Note well that the "coup" plotters were freed. The leading "coup" plotter was Gennadi Yanayev, head of the International Policy Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU. He supervises the International Dept., the global coordination agency of various communist,socialist, guerilla, terrorist,etc. groups. Among his important tasks is global active measures and disinformation, ie, political influence operations, a remarkably effective use of political war. With the success of his dept in manipulating US foreign policy and destroying US internal security, no serious Marxist leader would punish this important official. And isnt it curious that he, with his specific job, should lead the coup? He is, after all, a professional liar, a Red Sun- Tzu or Machiavelli. Note that i did not claim your ideas were consistent with politically incorrect views; I presented a systematic alternative. ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005