tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post1844296035312460840..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The Soviet Analogy and IranWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-54984597610087958592009-06-19T16:30:31.970-04:002009-06-19T16:30:31.970-04:00Klein is an idiot. In any case, what he's miss...Klein is an idiot. In any case, what he's missing is that the relative freedom in Iran over the past decade or so has pumped people up for the real deal. This is very much like the gradual relaxation of police-state controls in the USSR and East Europe that proceded with fits and starts from at least the early 70s. By the mid 80s, many more Soviet citizens had travelled abroad, most knew how backward their country was, Jews were emigrating to the US and Israel as fast as they could get permission to leave, and the sharp challenges to Soviet power from East Europe, particularly Poland, had given everyone the feeling that more freedom was possible, maybe even inevitable. Glasnost and pestrioika did not happen because Gorbachev was a raving liberal but because he sensed that he had no choice. What he did not anticipate was how fast and slippery the slope was.<br /><br />One more thing: new technologies did play a part in changing popular expectations and enabling reformist organization. The "new technology" of the era was the cassette player by which information from the West could be easily smuggled in and news about boat-rocking smuggled out. The worldwide organizations devoted to helping Soviet Jews emigrate and to support the political dissidents used this vehicle heavily. <br /><br />And the Helsinki Accords turned out to be an unwise agreement for the Soviets to embrace.J. E. Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682657792334163396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-68026264720462402252009-06-19T13:04:50.839-04:002009-06-19T13:04:50.839-04:00What history does teach us is this. nothing is in...What history does teach us is this. nothing is inevitable. and great turns in history often hinge on the smallest of things. imagine, for instance, if America didn't have George Washington but instead had a Napoleon or a Cromwell? imagine how different the world would be if we descended into dictatorship. imagine if Thomas Jefferson hadn't written that all men were created equal and with a stroke of the pen struck a death blow to slavery. But even then slavery could have recovered. Maybe we wouldn't have had the great Abraham Lincoln as president. Or Stonewall Jackson might not have been shot by his own men. Or Lee might not have been fool enough to attack the yankees on the high ground in Gettysburg. The 20th Maine might have broken when they ran out of ammo at little round top (they didn't--they heroically charged with their bayonets and won). Or perhaps Lincoln wouldn't have issued the emancipation proclamation until it was too late to have a real military impact. Or maybe Lincoln would never have found a Grant or Sherman.<br /><br />Or to pick more recent examples, how history could have turned out differently if we stopped Germany at the first violation of the armistace? Or if Japan choose not to attack pearl harbor delaying our entry into the war by years? Or if the RAF had not been able to overcome such incredible odds and stave off the invasion of britain? Or if we didn't kick Saddam out of Kuwait or if Isreal hadn't bombed that iraqi nuclear plant? (hint: in both cases we probably would have had a nuclear iraq to contend with.) Or imagine what might have happened if all those hints and leads that something big was coming was followed up on before September 10, 2001?<br /><br />Big events hinge on little moments and however much iran might look like this country or not all that gives us is what it might become. who can guess what will happen.<br /><br />Btw, Isaac Asimov had an interesting series of books built around the concept of "psychohistory." the idea was that history could be predicted by very complex mathematical formulae. But it required 3 rules. 1) there can be no massive and uneven shifts in technology, 2) we have to be talking about massive population (think trillions of people over many planets), and 3) no one can know the formula (outside of the scientists making the predictions). And if that doesn't sound like it would work, well, Asimov actually agrees with you on that too. in the novels, known as the foundation series, a scientist uses the formula to manage the collapse of the galactic empire and to found a new one, and everything is going perfectly for long time, and then one day it becomes clear that the scientist's plan is failing.<br /><br />On another note, i want to say that your commentary is very sharp and if i seem very critical, that is because usually when i agree, i don't comment at all, so my comments are disproportionately negative on every site.A.W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-56452174779960796602009-06-19T12:46:29.881-04:002009-06-19T12:46:29.881-04:00Fabulous post!Fabulous post!dianehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03792803123461097223noreply@blogger.com