Re: World Revolution and Conquest? Methods?

["Umberto Rossi" <urossi@programatic.it>]

> Umberto, thanks for your addition to the question of which side was
> planning "first strike". This is very interesting but not so
> relevant to EJ after all. Have always had this problem of
> understanding the comparison between a NATO of democracies and a
> totalitarian system with the final goal of world conquest. So what
> is "similar plans". Don't think for a moment that NATO was planning
> to strike at the Warsaw Pact to send Italian soldiers to fight and
> occupy the vast territory between the Elbe and Vladivostok. 

Well, we are able to look into the Warsaw Pact archives today
because you know what happened.  You do not know what is preserved
(is it?) in the archives of the NATO.  Did someone publish all the
plans prepared by the western armies?  We have had endless troubles
since 1980 trying to get information from NATO about the Ustica
accident.  Military secrets were such on both sides of the wall. 
Now you can feel indignant because you know of the Eastern plans. 
But what tells you you would like what the NATO had in its mind? 
And what tells you that the collapse/split-up of the USSR is not part of a
successful plan of the West?  (Ok, maybe this is exaggerated, but I
remember this scenario was repeatedly described by strategic and
political experts of the West well before 1989, and if those experts
discussed about this I can't believe the high commands of the NATO
knew nothing of that)  

And I do not know why you have to shift from the purely military
level to the ethical one.  Both blocs had their aims.  They were
different, ok.  Probably the Commies wanted to attack and destroy us
whine the Free World just wanted to defend itself (this describes
the European scenario only).  Ok.  But both were ruthless when it
came to achieving those aims.  Maybe the Russians were *a bit* more
ruthless.  Ok; but what happened in Chile should teach us that the
Western Bloc was not less ruthless. 

Umberto Rossi

"Reality is that which, when you stop 
believing in it, doesn't go away."