>>> "Peter Kilander" wrote
>Why be harder on U.S.
>or British "traitors" than on German "traitors." [SNIP]
Are you asking why should one be harder on those who worked for the Soviet Union against the U.S. or British states than on Germans who worked for the Soviet Union against the Nazis? Well, there are some differences between the Nazis and the U.S. and British states.
Chas.: But still the U.S. and British states have been and still are central to the world dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Any weakening of the center of imperialism in its struggle with the Soviet Union is to the good on balance. The Soviet Union was not militarily aggressive toward the U.S. or Britain, although the reverse cannot be said. At the time of the Harry whatshisname tenure, the U.S. and Soviets were allies. There was no threat to U.S. militariily from the Soviets.
Of course this doesn't mean I wouldn't be hard on the CIA agents who effectively passed death sentences on five thousand members of the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI,
Chas.: Plus the CIA agents probably helped prevent socialist revolution in Indonesia. This aspect of Western spying makes it worse than Eastern spying.
by handing their names over to Suharto and the insurgent generals during the '65 coup. I think you have to consider the Soviet Union - what's the word I'm searching for? - dialecticly. Sure, the West was forced to behave better than it would have because of it, but do your really think the terrorized Soviet citizenry gave a shit about that?
Chas: U.S. citizenry was being terrorized too - for example by the KKK. The question is what side are you on ,socialism or capitalism, bottomline ? Both sides have undemocratic aspects to their systems internally. But the U.S. was much more militarily aggressive globally and much more the bulwark of imperialism and colonialism, so in foreign policy it was much worse than the SU. A U.S. diplomat can't do much for Soviet citizens. But a U.S. diplomat might be able to help curb the rabid dog of the world U.S. a little.