I've long believed that Lee Harvey Oswald intended to assassinate John Connally, former Secretary of the Navy, because the Navy would not revoke his dishonorable discharge because of his defection to the Soviet Union. Was his aim bad or did he think the man in the back seat was Connally?
Consider that when apprehended he denied shooting the president. Was he lying or did he believe that he had killed Connally. Jack Ruby cut short any investigation by assassinating Oswald. That action also has a long swirl of speculation.
Given all the possible interpretations of events, is it any wonder that there is so much speculation about what really happened. It sure makes the day for conspiracy hypotheses. (I won't bless these hypotheses with the term "theory"; a theory has to have basis in proven facts, not speculation.)
See “Op-Ed Lee Harvey Oswald’s little green book show JFK wasn’t the real target”, James Reston Jr., Los Angeles Times, 2016-11-22 for many more details
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Friday, October 27, 2017
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The myths of fighting terrorism
President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism. But these actions only foment more terrorism. In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Nuclear weapons: Mything in action
I've long felt an unease about the justification of nuclear weapons, including the nuclear umbrella over Europe and that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks saved lives.
As for the nuclear umbrella, Britain and France had their own nuclear weapons, and so why would they need U.S. nuclear weapons to prevent attack by the Soviet Union? As far as the invasion of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, was it not by the same rationale that the U.S. has attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? After the horrors of the siege of Leningrad, wouldn't any sane leader be sure to provide a big buffer between his country and the attacker? How many times before was Russia invaded from Europe?
That is not to say the Soviet Union was a benign keeper of the peace; it wasn't.
As for saving lives, whose lives did the deaths of thousands of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki save? Invading troops? Would not a naval blockade of a country that had a defeated navy been just as effective? Were the bombs to bring a quick end to the war before the Soviets got involved? The Japanese were just as aware of the possibility and ready to surrender. It really pays to know your enemy, and too many warring countries have no clear understanding of their enemies.
For a more detailed discussion of the futility of nuclear weapons, see "The Myth of Nuclear Necessity", Ward Wilson, New York Times, 2013-01-13.
As for the nuclear umbrella, Britain and France had their own nuclear weapons, and so why would they need U.S. nuclear weapons to prevent attack by the Soviet Union? As far as the invasion of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, was it not by the same rationale that the U.S. has attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? After the horrors of the siege of Leningrad, wouldn't any sane leader be sure to provide a big buffer between his country and the attacker? How many times before was Russia invaded from Europe?
That is not to say the Soviet Union was a benign keeper of the peace; it wasn't.
As for saving lives, whose lives did the deaths of thousands of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki save? Invading troops? Would not a naval blockade of a country that had a defeated navy been just as effective? Were the bombs to bring a quick end to the war before the Soviets got involved? The Japanese were just as aware of the possibility and ready to surrender. It really pays to know your enemy, and too many warring countries have no clear understanding of their enemies.
For a more detailed discussion of the futility of nuclear weapons, see "The Myth of Nuclear Necessity", Ward Wilson, New York Times, 2013-01-13.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Will U.S. be the Soviet Union of the 21st Century?
Is the United States moving towards
A single contradictory ideology
Seeing threats everywhere
Giving a large portion of its resources to military
Meddling in other countries' affairs
Being ruled by an oligarchy with sham elections
Or maybe it will become like today's China, building with few environmental considerations, obsessed with security and squashing dissent, and giving sweeping power to large organizations?
I do wish the U.S. would develop a party with enough confidence to stand up to the pseudo-conservatives who are driving most of the political "discussion".
A single contradictory ideology
Seeing threats everywhere
Giving a large portion of its resources to military
Meddling in other countries' affairs
Being ruled by an oligarchy with sham elections
Or maybe it will become like today's China, building with few environmental considerations, obsessed with security and squashing dissent, and giving sweeping power to large organizations?
I do wish the U.S. would develop a party with enough confidence to stand up to the pseudo-conservatives who are driving most of the political "discussion".
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
WWII in Russia, a meandering search for a book
I like to keep up what little foreign language skills I have by listening to podcasts and reading newspapers. For a Swedish paper I chose Svenska Dagbladet over Dagens Nyheter. I was reading the former on my iPhone when I came across an article about Soviet women in WWII.
This has a special interest because we are going to a book club meeting tomorrow about "City of Thieves" by David Benioff, a novel set in the siege of Leningrad. It is very grim tale of the deprivations and horrors as the hero goes on a quixotic quest for a dozen eggs.
The article in Svenska Dagbladet is "Kriget enligt kvinnorna (The war according to the women)". It is about the book "Kriget har inget kvinnligt ansikte. Utopins Röster (The war has no womanly face. Utopians Voices)" The author, Svetlana Alexievitch, interviewed hundreds of women about their experiences, including active combat.
I wanted to give an English reference to the other attendees of the "City of Thieves" discussion. I went round and round with various translations of the Swedish, having no Russian title. Finally by using a translation of the title of the series "Utopia's Voices", I found it. The English title is "War's Unwomanly Face" and is widely available.
I don't know if I could read it after "City of Thieves". Consider that the Germans began the siege of Leningrad before the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Soviet Army and partisans didn't push them back until 1944, before the Allied landing at Normandy. Residents were starved and bombed and more. Getting supplies into the city took a lot of ingenuity, including Allied truck convoys over the frozen Lake Ladoga. We were in Leningrad in 1973 and saw the mass graves, dozens of furrows of mounded earth.
Is it any wonder the Soviets wanted a big, secure buffer between themselves and Germany? They weren't nice about it and made themselves quite unwanted. They only withdrew when their crumbling economy couldn't support the occupation any longer.
Are there any others who could learn from this lesson?
This has a special interest because we are going to a book club meeting tomorrow about "City of Thieves" by David Benioff, a novel set in the siege of Leningrad. It is very grim tale of the deprivations and horrors as the hero goes on a quixotic quest for a dozen eggs.
The article in Svenska Dagbladet is "Kriget enligt kvinnorna (The war according to the women)". It is about the book "Kriget har inget kvinnligt ansikte. Utopins Röster (The war has no womanly face. Utopians Voices)" The author, Svetlana Alexievitch, interviewed hundreds of women about their experiences, including active combat.
I wanted to give an English reference to the other attendees of the "City of Thieves" discussion. I went round and round with various translations of the Swedish, having no Russian title. Finally by using a translation of the title of the series "Utopia's Voices", I found it. The English title is "War's Unwomanly Face" and is widely available.
I don't know if I could read it after "City of Thieves". Consider that the Germans began the siege of Leningrad before the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Soviet Army and partisans didn't push them back until 1944, before the Allied landing at Normandy. Residents were starved and bombed and more. Getting supplies into the city took a lot of ingenuity, including Allied truck convoys over the frozen Lake Ladoga. We were in Leningrad in 1973 and saw the mass graves, dozens of furrows of mounded earth.
Is it any wonder the Soviets wanted a big, secure buffer between themselves and Germany? They weren't nice about it and made themselves quite unwanted. They only withdrew when their crumbling economy couldn't support the occupation any longer.
Are there any others who could learn from this lesson?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
An open day to catch up, but I'd rather do nothing
Here I sit, in our house in Duluth during a blizzard. I had planned to go skiing today, but even before the snow started, I decided that Spirit Mt. wouldn't be open because of the wind. I thought of doing some shopping, but driving is not recommended.
I did go out for the papers this morning and that was a bit of a struggle – bare sidewalk and then shin-high drifts. There was only one car at the restaurant where the paper boxes are, and I had breakfast there to give them a bit of business. I had planned to go tomorrow. A few more people came in, but the restaurant was short-staffed because of the blizzard and it closed at nine.
When I came back home it was into the wind. To keep my hat on, I had to look at the ground in front of me. To get up the steps from the sidewalk I had to pull myself up with the handrail because of the drifts. And I had to struggle to get the front door open because of another drift.
I thought of going to the fitness center because the buses were running, but did I really want to battle my way to the corner again?
Some of the heroes today are those who put the papers in the boxes, the bus drivers, the restaurant staff, and our mail carrier. She or her sub came by far earlier than I expected, and our box let in a lot of snow. At least there were no soaking checks or blurred ink. Another hero is the person who went down the block struggling with a snowblower. Unless he has somewhere to go, I don't see the point; the continuing snow and the gusting wind will soon fill the path up again.
It was fortunate that my wife had chosen yesterday to go to Tokyo to visit our son and his family. The same flight out of Duluth today was cancelled. Even then, her flight from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Tokyo was delayed because of snow.
My lunch was rather makeshift because I was going to buy some of the stuff I had planned to eat. So I had to pick and choose stuff out of the refrigerator that I wouldn't normally eat for lunch, like yogurt and peanut butter.
So, here I sit with a pile of stuff on my left to file or throw out and a similar pile on my right. I could download Turbo Tax and get started on taxes. I could clear up my backlog of email. I could practice singing. I could read any of the five, six, or seven books I've started. I could even start a fire in the fireplace and sit all afternoon reading. But I just flit from one little thing to another. I read a bit of one newspaper or other online. I play a bit of SuDoKu.
Instead I stare at the screen or I try to look out the snow-covered window to see if the storm has abated. I really can't see if it is still snowing without going right up to a window and looking out through a "clearer" spot. I do know the wind is still blowing.
I do get in some of my physical therapy exercises for my sore shoulder, but that only takes five minutes or so.
I could drink our last bottle of wine, but I would only get woozy and sick.
Maybe I will light a fire and then finish "Il Compagno Don Camillo" and then reread "Comrade Don Camillo" to see how much of the Italian I understood. I do get the larger picture, but I know I'm missing lots of nuance. Well, maybe not lots. I do know that compagno Don Camillo doesn't miss any chance to use Communist doctrine to point up inconsistencies in Soviet practice.
That's what I need. A good chuckle! Ciao!
I did go out for the papers this morning and that was a bit of a struggle – bare sidewalk and then shin-high drifts. There was only one car at the restaurant where the paper boxes are, and I had breakfast there to give them a bit of business. I had planned to go tomorrow. A few more people came in, but the restaurant was short-staffed because of the blizzard and it closed at nine.
When I came back home it was into the wind. To keep my hat on, I had to look at the ground in front of me. To get up the steps from the sidewalk I had to pull myself up with the handrail because of the drifts. And I had to struggle to get the front door open because of another drift.
I thought of going to the fitness center because the buses were running, but did I really want to battle my way to the corner again?
Some of the heroes today are those who put the papers in the boxes, the bus drivers, the restaurant staff, and our mail carrier. She or her sub came by far earlier than I expected, and our box let in a lot of snow. At least there were no soaking checks or blurred ink. Another hero is the person who went down the block struggling with a snowblower. Unless he has somewhere to go, I don't see the point; the continuing snow and the gusting wind will soon fill the path up again.
It was fortunate that my wife had chosen yesterday to go to Tokyo to visit our son and his family. The same flight out of Duluth today was cancelled. Even then, her flight from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Tokyo was delayed because of snow.
My lunch was rather makeshift because I was going to buy some of the stuff I had planned to eat. So I had to pick and choose stuff out of the refrigerator that I wouldn't normally eat for lunch, like yogurt and peanut butter.
So, here I sit with a pile of stuff on my left to file or throw out and a similar pile on my right. I could download Turbo Tax and get started on taxes. I could clear up my backlog of email. I could practice singing. I could read any of the five, six, or seven books I've started. I could even start a fire in the fireplace and sit all afternoon reading. But I just flit from one little thing to another. I read a bit of one newspaper or other online. I play a bit of SuDoKu.
Instead I stare at the screen or I try to look out the snow-covered window to see if the storm has abated. I really can't see if it is still snowing without going right up to a window and looking out through a "clearer" spot. I do know the wind is still blowing.
I do get in some of my physical therapy exercises for my sore shoulder, but that only takes five minutes or so.
I could drink our last bottle of wine, but I would only get woozy and sick.
Maybe I will light a fire and then finish "Il Compagno Don Camillo" and then reread "Comrade Don Camillo" to see how much of the Italian I understood. I do get the larger picture, but I know I'm missing lots of nuance. Well, maybe not lots. I do know that compagno Don Camillo doesn't miss any chance to use Communist doctrine to point up inconsistencies in Soviet practice.
That's what I need. A good chuckle! Ciao!
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Reagan, Gorbachev, and the Berlin Wall
Many credit Ronald Reagan with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, citing Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down the wall!" and other actions.
First, Gorbachev was no absolute dictator like Stalin. He had many constituencies to please, both hard-line and open-minded. Gorbachev knew the Soviet Union was not working, but he could not like Stalin or Mao simply declare a change of course. He had to move politically rather than autocratically.
Second, Gorbachev's predecessors had put the Soviet Union in a precarious financial position with an overabundance of subsidies. The only thing that propped up the finances of the Soviet Union was the export of oil at $70/barrel.
Then the price of oil collapsed to $10/barrel, and with it the Soviet Union.
The severe drop in the price of oil was caused by millions of consumers saving energy, something Reagan was not enthusiastic about.
Unfortunately, things have turned around and consumption has gone up, the price of oil has gone up, and petro-dictators have been propped up. But blame Americans only indirectly. Many people in the world want to live like us and now they are - in China, India, South America, and many other places. And to live like Americans, they drive cars, air-condition their houses, and power their proliferating gadgets.
See "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas Friedman
First, Gorbachev was no absolute dictator like Stalin. He had many constituencies to please, both hard-line and open-minded. Gorbachev knew the Soviet Union was not working, but he could not like Stalin or Mao simply declare a change of course. He had to move politically rather than autocratically.
Second, Gorbachev's predecessors had put the Soviet Union in a precarious financial position with an overabundance of subsidies. The only thing that propped up the finances of the Soviet Union was the export of oil at $70/barrel.
Then the price of oil collapsed to $10/barrel, and with it the Soviet Union.
The severe drop in the price of oil was caused by millions of consumers saving energy, something Reagan was not enthusiastic about.
Unfortunately, things have turned around and consumption has gone up, the price of oil has gone up, and petro-dictators have been propped up. But blame Americans only indirectly. Many people in the world want to live like us and now they are - in China, India, South America, and many other places. And to live like Americans, they drive cars, air-condition their houses, and power their proliferating gadgets.
See "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas Friedman
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Cold War Revisited
Today was the first day of the University for Seniors class "Cold War Revisited" led by Neil Storch, a UMD Professor Emeritus. It was supposed to be the second day, but the "Cold War" was cancelled because of the cold (a blizzard).
I'm not a great note taker, but I do get some highlights.
What we know of history today may not be true tomorrow. New evidence seems to become available frequently, especially about recent history. Archives may be opened or other sources may be discovered. For example, the Soviet archives showed that Julius Rosenberg really was a spy.
Much of the Cold War was an attempt to contain the Soviet Union, especially in Europe. There was great concern in the West that Stalin would overrun Europe to expand the Soviet Empire. Stalin didn't want to invade Western Europe because it would reunite Germany, and even under Soviet control, Germany would be a threat to the Soviet Union.
I'm not a great note taker, but I do get some highlights.
What we know of history today may not be true tomorrow. New evidence seems to become available frequently, especially about recent history. Archives may be opened or other sources may be discovered. For example, the Soviet archives showed that Julius Rosenberg really was a spy.
Much of the Cold War was an attempt to contain the Soviet Union, especially in Europe. There was great concern in the West that Stalin would overrun Europe to expand the Soviet Empire. Stalin didn't want to invade Western Europe because it would reunite Germany, and even under Soviet control, Germany would be a threat to the Soviet Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)