<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="todaycom/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Most Controversial Post Yet&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://fearlesshistory.today.com/2008/12/17/the-most-controversial-post-yet/</link>
	<description>Making History as personal as a punch in the face</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:13:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: vetmichael</title>
		<link>http://fearlesshistory.today.com/2008/12/17/the-most-controversial-post-yet/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>vetmichael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://fearlesshistory.today.com/2008/12/17/the-most-controversial-post-yet/#comment-153</guid>
		<description>Well, the most popular historic theory is that an alliance with Israel seemed natural for Stalin both because of the Socialist leanings (the Kibbutz is a farming collective, afterall) and because [perhaps more importantly] it allowed the Russians/Soviets into the Middle East. The Middle East was (and still is) a place the Russians had been fighting with Britain over for centuries - it was called "The Great Game" in the 19th century. Since the United States was the new antagonist in The Great Game, as well as a surrogate for Britain, it made a natural match. Surprisingly, despite all the Bolshevik rhetoric about a new regime and obliterating the Czarist past, the Soviet Union pretty much acted like it was a Romanov dynastic successor; aspirations to control Poland and the Balkans, for example, led to disaster for Russia but were a fait accompli for the Soviet Union after WWII.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the most popular historic theory is that an alliance with Israel seemed natural for Stalin both because of the Socialist leanings (the Kibbutz is a farming collective, afterall) and because [perhaps more importantly] it allowed the Russians/Soviets into the Middle East. The Middle East was (and still is) a place the Russians had been fighting with Britain over for centuries - it was called &#8220;The Great Game&#8221; in the 19th century. Since the United States was the new antagonist in The Great Game, as well as a surrogate for Britain, it made a natural match. Surprisingly, despite all the Bolshevik rhetoric about a new regime and obliterating the Czarist past, the Soviet Union pretty much acted like it was a Romanov dynastic successor; aspirations to control Poland and the Balkans, for example, led to disaster for Russia but were a fait accompli for the Soviet Union after WWII.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


