First let me apologize for implicitly comparing you to Henry Kissinger - I respect you views, and agree with you on a lot of other issues. I only meant to point out that I thought (and still do) that you were using the same method of rationalization to defend soviet aggression that US apologists use to justify US violence. But I could have been more polite about it.
Now on with the debate.
>Charles: Sorry, Henry Kissinger is with your side in this argument. You
sound >like Henry Kissinger and the whole anti-Soviet history school.
I believe in the principles that violence and arbitrary power, especially on the scale of invading a helpless neighboring country, is unjustifiable.
With this starting point, it then follows that the Nazi conquests should be denounced and resisted. It follows that the US adventures all over the globe, such as the invasion of Vietnam and the support of brutal puppets like Somoza and Baby Doc, should be resisted and denounced. And it follows that the Soviet aggression against Poland and Finland in 1939 and against Afghanistan in the 80's should be resisted.
>I'm with the Viet Namese and Cambodians, as were the Soviets.
I would also have been with the Vietnamese and Cambodians during the Vietnam War.
>You've got it upside down. The Soviets were anti-imperialist.
When it comes to Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1939, or Eastern Europe after WWII, or Afghanistan in the 80's I disagree.
>Charles: No, Henry Kissinger agrees with you in this argument. He was sort
of like the Nazis saying we have to stop the rising tide of "Soviet
Imperialism". It is you, like Henry Kissinger, who claims the problem was
Soviet imperialism, whether in Southeast Asia or Europe.
If I lived in eastern Poland in 1939, Soviet imperialism would have been the problem.
I'm not arguing that the fSU acted as a brake on US imperialism during the Cold War - it did. I'm saying there are cases where the fSU acted like an imperialist power.
>Charles: The Poles attacked the Soviet Union with the "NATO" force in
1919. >The Poles had been conquered by the Germans. It became a strategic
issue.
And Russia had conquered the Poles before WWI. How is this, or the fact that the Poles fought against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War, relevant to the question of whether or not a Russian invasion of Poland in 1939 was justified?
Anyway, the Poles were conquered by the Germans in part because Stalin promised not to come to their defense. Quite the contrary, Stalin agreed to carve it up into pieces, a German and a Russian piece. I don't find your reasoning even slightly compelling.
>In any case, the Germans mopped up Poland with Russia's assistance. The
>Nazi-Soviet Pact was vital in this respect. The Germans were worried about
>a two-front war, since this was a big part of why they lost WWI. Making
>sure the Russians would not interfere gave Hitler a free hand in Poland and
>later in France and the low countries (Belgium and Holland).
>
>Charles: The main confrontation was between Germany and the SU. The
Russians were not helping the Germans do anything, except to prepare longer
to fight them.
All the evidence I've seen argues against this interpretation.
Brett