Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: > > Russia is in much the same situation, and so is China. But these are right > now nations much poorer than the US. Walt keeps reminding the LUG that the > US is the 900-pound gorilla in the parlor, and so we are but there might > well come a time when these nations -- or, say, Brazil -- might be in our > position. > Marc, by and large I tend to agree with you but over Russia I must beg to differ. Russia has been painfully aware if its neighbours for a thousand years. The original political and military reason for the Russian Empire, later the Soviet Empire was to form a buffer to protect Russia from the Mongols, The Swedes, The germans, The British, The Japanese, The Persians, Islam, The US, China, Japan etc (choose your era). The economic benefits of larger markets (particularly in the 19th Century) came as added benefits and in some cases almost liabilities. The continuation of this of course happened at the end of WWII. The Soviet Union sought buffer states against the Western Powers - and a potentially resurgent Germany(in the form of West Germany) - and to ensure that any war would have to be fought there before it got to the heartlands. That these countroes would suffer both socially and economically had little or nothing to do with it. The "liberation" of the workers was merely a modernist expression (within the context of Russian aims) of a very long-standing Russian, not Soviet, perspective on the world. The need for a barrier may indeed be thought of as isolationist, but at no time has Russia/Soviet Union been isolationist in the same sense that, I think, you mean. China on the other hand HAS historically, along with Japan, been isolationist, believing that all nations were subservient to The Dragon Throne. Japan as is well known shut her doors to external trade for almost two hundred years and got us Madama Butterfly as a consequence! Peter Dzwig > Marc