I am not sure what OP wants to say with this submission... Is it that the US treats differently people who defect to them than people who defect from them? That's... not very surprising. In some way it feels more fair than the way the Soviets treated Kim Philby, a British spy and defector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby (tl;dr: he wasn't a KGB colonel like he was promised, he was kept essentially in house arrest, and had a 500 rubel allowance).
As for Kukliński, being a Pole myself, I have mixed feelings. I very much prefer that my country is in the American sphere of influence (and not the Soviet as it used to for almost 50 years). However, if WW3 had happened, we would've been be on the Soviet side. Zbigniew Brzeziński said that Kuklinski’s information had permitted them to make counterplans to disrupt command-and-control facilities rather than only relying on a massive counterattack on forward positions, which would have hit Poland. However, I have no dellusions that anybody in the US would have any doubts about turning Poland into a radioactive wasteland if that served the American interests of the moment...
Also, the Polish government after the fall of Communism wasn't very eager to pardon Kukliński. That happened only after Clinton's administration threatened to block Poland's NATO accession if he weren't exonerated.
Being on the Soviet side would have been worthless as well of course, as it was clear that central Europe would be a nuclear wasteland in any case.
Operational plans of the Soviets against NATO foresaw the first wave of attack led by troops from Warsaw pact nations (East Germany, Poland, etc.) - which would have been completely wiped out by NATO defenses, but depleting their arsenals. The second wave would have consisted of fresh Russian troops which then would have swept through the rubble of Europe.
These plans have been made public a few years ago and here in Austria they were part of a exhibtion. Austria would have suffered a similar fate, some plans seeing Soviet tank troops advancing along the Danube, some plans ignoring it but in both cases seeing nuclear weapons (tactical) be deployed by both sides. NATO would have nuked bridges instantly, the WP denied NATO Vienna as a bridgehead.
As a Pole myself it is pretty clear that if you're caught between two power blocks (Germans, Russia, NATO, Soviets, whatever) you're always fucked whatever "side" you're on. You're collateral damage in their power struggle.
"In matters of military contingency, the expected, precisely because it is expected, is not to be expected. Rationale: What we expect, we plan and provide for; what we plan and provide for, we thereby deter; what we deter does not happen. What does happen is what we did not deter, because we did not plan and provide for it, because we did not expect it."
Comments
I am not sure what OP wants to say with this submission... Is it that the US treats differently people who defect to them than people who defect from them? That's... not very surprising. In some way it feels more fair than the way the Soviets treated Kim Philby, a British spy and defector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby (tl;dr: he wasn't a KGB colonel like he was promised, he was kept essentially in house arrest, and had a 500 rubel allowance).
As for Kukliński, being a Pole myself, I have mixed feelings. I very much prefer that my country is in the American sphere of influence (and not the Soviet as it used to for almost 50 years). However, if WW3 had happened, we would've been be on the Soviet side. Zbigniew Brzeziński said that Kuklinski’s information had permitted them to make counterplans to disrupt command-and-control facilities rather than only relying on a massive counterattack on forward positions, which would have hit Poland. However, I have no dellusions that anybody in the US would have any doubts about turning Poland into a radioactive wasteland if that served the American interests of the moment...
Also, the Polish government after the fall of Communism wasn't very eager to pardon Kukliński. That happened only after Clinton's administration threatened to block Poland's NATO accession if he weren't exonerated.
Being on the Soviet side would have been worthless as well of course, as it was clear that central Europe would be a nuclear wasteland in any case.
Operational plans of the Soviets against NATO foresaw the first wave of attack led by troops from Warsaw pact nations (East Germany, Poland, etc.) - which would have been completely wiped out by NATO defenses, but depleting their arsenals. The second wave would have consisted of fresh Russian troops which then would have swept through the rubble of Europe.
These plans have been made public a few years ago and here in Austria they were part of a exhibtion. Austria would have suffered a similar fate, some plans seeing Soviet tank troops advancing along the Danube, some plans ignoring it but in both cases seeing nuclear weapons (tactical) be deployed by both sides. NATO would have nuked bridges instantly, the WP denied NATO Vienna as a bridgehead.
As a Pole myself it is pretty clear that if you're caught between two power blocks (Germans, Russia, NATO, Soviets, whatever) you're always fucked whatever "side" you're on. You're collateral damage in their power struggle.
"In matters of military contingency, the expected, precisely because it is expected, is not to be expected. Rationale: What we expect, we plan and provide for; what we plan and provide for, we thereby deter; what we deter does not happen. What does happen is what we did not deter, because we did not plan and provide for it, because we did not expect it."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6127193/learning-to-live-wi...
I submitted this mainly for the quote:
"And he did so for the noblest of reason — to advance the sacred causes of liberty and peace in his homeland and throughout the world."
For me it means from the view of the CIA liberty and peace are a legitimation for spying and is highly appreciated.
Spying agencies spy, news at 11.