James A. Donald kirjoitti:
>>>> Finn's *had* to sell stuff to Russia, and *had* to
>>>> accept worthless rubles in exchange. Big difference.
>>> Wrong.
>> This summarizes the course of this debate on 'Finlandization' right
>> there. A more verbose description would be severely anything but
>> flattery to Mr Donald.
OK. So Mr Donald ,once again, ignored the part where his disinformation
is corrected. The part where he falsely claims Finland got rubles in
exchange.
> I repeat: The Finns, the Czechs, the Poles, and the Hungarians, were
> getting pretty much the same deal. If it was such a great deal, why
> did no one accept it except at gunpoint?
Perhaps you should ask the Soviet leaders of what determined their
choice of partners. My opinion is that the Soviet society was based on
ideology first, economy second. The Soviets got what they needed from
trade with fellow socialist, and what it regarded as friendly capitalist
countries. Why do business with the "enemy" when you get the same stuff
from friends?
(Besides the USA *did* trade with the USSR. Was it because a gun was
held at them?)
> Everyone who tells us what a great deal it was stresses the stuff the
> Soviets got. No one mentions the stuff the Finns and the rest got,
> because they did not get much.
Oil is a pretty valuable commodity - and we got it below market price.
--
Anton
|
