Soviet and US Economy

[Charles Brown]

I don't know about "only" benefits, but
after fascism became so widespread in
Eastern Europe, and the Nazis invaded
the USSR and killed 20 million and 
destroyed a huge fraction of the economy
and society, the Soviets sort of had to
put the source of this holocaust on ice
a bit. I mean wouldn't you have ? Would
you have just defeated them and left,
creating the chance that fascism would
rise up again and annihilate you ? So, a
"benefit" was the defeat of fascism. 95%
of the Nazis casualties were inflicted by
the Red Army. 

Also, "imperialism" is not the correct
term to describe the Soviet presence.
They were not exploiting Eastern Europe
in the way that the powerful capitalist
nations exploit colonies and neo-colonies.
The Soviets never initiated any 
aggression against imperialism. Imperialism
was the initiator of the blockade and
war on the new SU. It was the invader
in WW II and imperialism started and
initiated all escalations of the nuclear 
arms race. The Soviets urged
abolition of nuclear weapons after
the U.S. dropped the bomb on
Japan.

Charles Brown


>>> Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> 07/18 5:38 PM >>>
RE:
>
>The reason for doing so is consistency and concern for the welfare of
>workers, East and West. Some on this list agonize over US imperialism in
>Latin America but see only benefits with USSR imperialism in Eastern
>Europe.

Who on this list sees *only* benefits from USSR imperialism from Eastern
Europe?

(The only places where I see net benefits from USSR imperialism are
Afghanistan (Najibullah better than Taliban), Angola (Jonas Savimibi is bad
news), and Mozambique (almost anyone better than RENAMO). Everywhere else,
I think the people would have been better off if the rulers of the USSR had
simply never heard of the place...)

Brad DeLong