From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:57:34 GMT

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

>In article <brian.712120712@coombs>, brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>> 	In addition, Suvorov's claims WRT to "new" Soviet equipment (and old
>> as well, particularly some of the SU-series of SPAT guns) have also been proven
>> quite correct.  What does though have to be taken with a considerable grain
>> of salt is the claim that are made in all of the Suvorov books WRT to Soviet
>> intentions and abilities.  I suspect that Suvorov and Co., all with their
>> own particular axe to grind, particularly  WRT to their own beliefs (and the 
>> particular beliefs of their intended audience - the right in the West)
>> pandered to their own worst fears in order to sensationalise and sell their
>> books.  I also suspect that they are unrepentant about such things in the
>> belief they had a particular mission to fufill to "awaken" a complacent
>> West to the terrible "dangers" of the Soviet conspiracy.
>> 

>It could be that what you say is true, that Suvorov and Co. were
>alarmists, and would do anything to warn the west of the Soviet threat
>including stretch the truth.  However, I like to think of another time
>in history, the 1930's, where Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of
>Great Britain wanted peace so much, he set his country in a direction
>that, in the end, required it defend it's future existance in a
>terrible war, which almost bankrupted it.

	However you are falling onto the very trap that they have set for you.
You fear the existence of an alternative political system and so you feel
you must prepare to challenge it, not in the political sphere but rather in
the military one.  As Gervasi points out in his book, "The Myth of Soviet
Military Supremacy" such fears and perceptions only result in what actually
happened: an arms race with each side feeding off the fear and perceptions
of the opposition they see to their chosen political path in the rhetoric
and posturing which politicians use? 
	If you add to that the exploitation by politicians on _both_ sides
of the fence of that percieved fear, for their own political ends (in
particular WRT to the US government's use of the Bomber "gap" and the missile
"gap" and the "Window of vulnerability") you have a climate of fear and
uncertainity which results in something like the cold war which we have
thankfully emerged from now relatively unscathed.
	Don't you think that because of the ending of the Cold War we should
now reasse the reasons why such a period occurred instead of simply sitting
back and calmly accepting the commonly held belief of why one side of another
"won it" so that we can perhaps _avoid_ a future re-occurance? 

>I'm glad our leaders took the Soviet threat seriously, instead of
>pulling another Chamberlain.  They probably saved us from an even more
>terrible war.  === Al Sparks

	Al, there is considerable difference between taking a "threat" (if
there was in truth every, something I find rather questionable myself)
seriously and actually trying to appease such a "threat".  Don't you think
you should be looking beyond the "truths" that your establishment present
to you and examining hoe the "establishment" exploited your fears of something
which present no real danger to you?



--
Brian Ross____________________________________________________________________
"I express many absurd opinions.  But I am not the first man to do it; 
	American freedom consists largely of talking nonsense."
____________________________________ E.W.Howe, Preaching from the Audience____
Newsgroups: soc.history