Peacetime? It wasn't called cold "war" for nothing. Make no mistake, the
cold war was exactly that.
Further, you make it sound like Churchill and Roosevelt had absolutely no
ambivilance whatever about sitting down with Stalin.
As my dad was in WWII, I have no wish to cheapen his efforts. However, look
again at the "moral equivalance."
1) Hitler was a murderer practicing expansionist policies; the US formed an
anti-Nazi alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Stalin ended up
murdering more people than Hitler ever did.
2) The Soviet Union was a murderous nation practicing expansionist policies
(in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Romania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Nicaragua etc etc.. .... did you guys forget the
USSR was more than just Ivan Drago giving Rocky Balboa brain damage?); The
US formed many anti-Soviet alliances to defeat Communism, and some of them
(i.e. Bin Laden) have turned into vicious anti-American murderers
themselves.
I see the two situations as roughly morally equal; that is, unless you are
still under the erroneous belief that the Soviet communists were somehow
morally superior to the National socialists.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Allerton <Mark@warmspot.cix.co.uk>
To: Steve Catanzaro <stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com>
Cc: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Keepin On...'Best Kept'
Re: Stalin
I think there's a world of difference between the decisions taken
at a time of war when your borders and those of your allies are
threatened, and those taken to further peacetime economic and
foreign policy interests. You risk cheapening the efforts of those
who fought in WW2 by trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence
between the two.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 19:31:02 CEST