I propose this test, since we have the advantage in all of this
of both what Party Chairman Gorbachev said within 18 days of
the incident, and the current policy position that he holds in
regards to the incident. A Simple case study we do not have for
the positioning of Khruschev or Bhrezhnev, since neither of them
would survive the cold war.
The initial party reactions to Outside Agitation by Known AntiCommunist
elements, such as the EcoFreaks in Scandinavia and NATO, were clearly
listed as being just so much AntiCommunist Propoganda.
Now that the AntiCommunist Elements have taken over Russia, one
wonders if the adoption of the AntiCommunistPartyLine by Russian
Policial Leaders is Merely so much continuation of the ColdWarMentality.
Hence, is it the case that there Really WAS a Problem at Chernobyl,
which we can no longer document, since all sources are in the hands
of AntiCommunist Elements, or is it the Case that Nothing Really
Happened at Chernobyl, and we can not prove this since all sources
are in the hands of AntiCommunist Elements.
>From this we find that we might conclude that anyone who would
argue that there was a problem at Chernobyl is merely relying upon
the Disgruntled Opinions of those AntiCommunists who have manipulated
the source material for their own Gain.
So that we can all see the Clear Linkage to the 'sixties' issues,
1. The AntiNuke Movement in the USA would be seriously linked to efforts
by RedKommiePaidAgentsOfMoskva who were ultimately seeking to provide the
soviets with Nuclear Superiority. A point made more comical when the various
'green' elements in the USSR were linked to AmericanImperialist efforts to
undermine the Soviet effort to achieve nuclear parity with the west to provide
the nuclear umbrella of protection for the worker's paradise.
2. The nature of 'veracity' of anti-communist elements has always been
suspect, both by those who are STILL ProStalinists, as well as those who
were obliged to worry about 'moles' and 'double agents'. Coupled as it
tragically became, by the complications of so many of the third world
governments winding up as mere 'tin-plated dictatorships' that needed an
excuse to acquire american military aid to suppress the threat of democracy
breaking out in their countries.
3. In light of the various 'hippie' efforts to "cop out" of the 'cold war';
was there, and is there, really an alternative, a 'third force' that could
have achieved different ends. Given that the Dissident elements on both sides
of the Iron Curtain took a beating from the 'prime movers' of the 'cold war'
were they actually a 'third force' - or merely the co-opted stooges?
ciao
drieux