Russians. What ???

[Stevicus]

Perhaps a lot of this was caused by continued hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Why doesn't the world just step back and let them brawl it out? Saudi Arabia is around 30 million and Iran is around 80 million.

That was the view taken by many of America's Founders, that we should just stay out of other countries' business and play no favorites among nations. That view prevailed until the World Wars, when more people believed that interventionism was better.

 

[Ellen Brown]

That was the view taken by many of America's Founders, that we should just stay out of other countries' business and play no favorites among nations. That view prevailed until the World Wars, when more people believed that interventionism was better.

I spoke out of frustration, and I know that I am not a world leader. It just seems like Europe is into recreational warfare, and WWI & II somehow seduced America into it. Perhaps Germany should have won WWI ? I wonder what that would have been like. The Royal blood over there seems to be one big pool anyhow.

 

[Stevicus]

I spoke out of frustration, and I know that I am not a world leader. It just seems like Europe is into recreational warfare, and WWI & II somehow seduced America into it. Perhaps Germany should have won WWI ? I wonder what that would have been like. The Royal blood over there seems to be one big pool anyhow.

I don't know if Germany should have won WW1, but there were probably things that could have been done to avoid WW1 altogether.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I don't know if Germany should have won WW1, but there were probably things that could have been done to avoid WW1 altogether.

I was told that WWI was a family feud between the Royals? And it was the French who pressed such a punitive settlement of WWI. The families should have had a duel perhaps?

 

[Jumi]

I was told that WWI was a family feud between the Royals? And it was the French who pressed such a punitive settlement of WWI. The families should have had a duel perhaps?

Some of those guys leading the countries at war were cousins, yes. So there's speculation that at least family feuds made things worse, I personally don't think that was large enough issue to make the war however.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, under the circumstances I outlined. I didn't say that it was right or fair to the neutral countries in question, but when looking at the larger picture, it's explainable.

Everything evil is explainable. Countries killing off rich minorities is explainable, because they need money. Poor minorities? They can't afford to support them... and so on. US killing off natives is explainable, they needed more room... it just depends how much morality are you willing to sacrifice for an explanation. How much do you want to be a member of the team you support?

Keep in mind that the context of the OP's question was about US-Russian relations specifically.

Keep in mind that the sub-context we were talking about was Soviet expansionism into Europe and how it was a real scenario that we had to prepare for. They themselves voiced much of it so it's no secret even.

A lot of these conflicts related to the Cold War were an outgrowth of colonialism and/or the fallout from WW2, which neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union actually started. The world was in quite a mess in the years following WW2, and that mess was mostly caused by other countries.

They didn't start much of the conflicts, they were like the wolves looking for a bloody feast and they provided some "help" to make that happen.

 

[Flankerl]

They've been invaded more than we have. It's certainly not the story of every single country on Earth. You're clearly exaggerating here.

So who apart from the US? Do you not realise that the Geopolitical situation of the US is quite special?

Central Europe used to be the Battlefield of all the powerful since the end of the Western Roman Empire.

The Thirty Years War claimed the lives of 25-40% of the population of the Holy Roman Empire, aka civilians.
All the Russians ever endured prior to WW2 were the Mongol Invasion from the east and Napoleon from the west. And the rest of Europe also had these two visitors.

The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1917. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire prior to that, so it was already annexed a long time before. Some refer to that period as the Russian Civil War.

The RSFSR did and it was the major force behind the USSR for its entire existence.
And would you look at that, they even called it the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

And regarding the Civil War, ever heard about the weird concept called the self determination of the people? Quite the big topic after WW1.
The Lithuanians, Poles, Estonians, Finns, Ukrainians..... did not want to be part of Russia, whether it was a Monarchy or a Communist Dictatorship.

It was the Russian Civil War, and it's natural that it would involve the various provinces which were within the falling Russian Empire, which the Whites were trying to restore to power, along with the help of people from the republics you listed above, not to mention Germans, Czechs, British, Japanese, and even Americans. It was quite an international convention for a while. So, the Reds fought back. What else could anyone expect them to do?

So they fought back. You do realise that these countries like Ukraine, Lithuania etc all proclaimed their independence right?
Afterwards they were invaded by Russian troops.

I thought you were American. Aren't you guys pretty big about the whole "Freedom" stuff you got going on there?
These were obvious invasions.

It was all part of the same overall struggle, which was a civil war within the former Russian Empire, which encompassed all of the territories you mention, except for Mongolia. But then again, considering what the Mongols did to Russia, I guess they're even now.

So Mongols invaded Russia in the Middle Ages. That gives Russia the right to meddle in the affairs of Mongolia in the 20th century.

Amazing.

It was a civil war. It didn't really threaten America, though, nor did it really threaten the Western Allies at that particular time. The peculiar irony to the arguments you're making here is that, if the Bolsheviks had not taken power and Russia remained in the war until the end, the territory of the Russian Empire would have remained intact, and none of the countries you listed above would ever have had even a glimmer of independence. There would have been no need for the Russians to "invade" Finland or Ukraine, since those territories already belonged to them.

You really don't know a lot about the fall of the Russian Empire do you?
All the independence movements within the Empire did not just spring up because of the Russian Civil War.

And believe it or don't, not everything that ever happens is about America.

The Soviet Union directly aided Communists in other countries after taking power.
They wanted a border with Germany to aid the local Communists and achieve another takeover.

Ultimately, what happened to the countries in question was more the result of the actions of Germany and the Axis Powers in WW2. It wasn't the Russians' fault that the Nazis rose to power in Germany; I think they were rooting for the Communists to come to power, but that was not to be. During the war, the Soviets moved into territories which were either occupied by the Germans or part of the Axis itself.

Kind of weird to leave out the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which the Nazis and Soviets carved up Eastern Europe.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Poland.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Estonia.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Lithuania.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Latvia.

These people were then ruled by a tiny minority of local Communists who were supported by the Russian Communists.

There is a reason why they all joined NATO and the EU after the fall of the USSR.

 

[Stevicus]

Everything evil is explainable. Countries killing off rich minorities is explainable, because they need money. Poor minorities? They can't afford to support them... and so on. US killing off natives is explainable, they needed more room... it just depends how much morality are you willing to sacrifice for an explanation. How much do you want to be a member of the team you support?

I wouldn't go that far. I'm not trying to justify anything here. History is replete with examples of such "evil," but if we want to avoid repeating history, I believe it's best to be clear-headed and objective as to the causes. If we want to reduce historical figures to the level of comic book supervillains, then that might make some people feel better, but it doesn't shed much light on why things happen.

Keep in mind that the sub-context we were talking about was Soviet expansionism into Europe and how it was a real scenario that we had to prepare for. They themselves voiced much of it so it's no secret even.

And so did we. We had our share of saber-rattlers on our side as well.

They didn't start much of the conflicts, they were like the wolves looking for a bloody feast and they provided some "help" to make that happen.

This description makes it sound like they were deeply emotionally invested in a "bloody feast," although it seems more likely they were like disinterested chess players. If a chess player sacrifices or captures a pawn, they're not likely to care much about what happens to that pawn. It's probably more along the lines of being "strictly business, nothing personal."

 

[Jumi]

I wouldn't go that far. I'm not trying to justify anything here. History is replete with examples of such "evil," but if we want to avoid repeating history, I believe it's best to be clear-headed and objective as to the causes. If we want to reduce historical figures to the level of comic book supervillains, then that might make some people feel better, but it doesn't shed much light on why things happen.

We're not "reducing" Stalin or Lenin (or Hitler even) to comicbook supervillains. They were terrible enough on their own.

And so did we. We had our share of saber-rattlers on our side as well.

Would have been less of them if not for the Soviet goals being rather public... surprising that you are not understanding those "saber-rattlers" the same way that you do with the Soviet saber-rattlers. Agitators were always ready on the marketplace to defend Soviet peace bombs and loss of civilian life, not much that different from "defending freedom" or "American interests" from an outside perspective.

This description makes it sound like they were deeply emotionally invested in a "bloody feast," although it seems more likely they were like disinterested chess players. If a chess player sacrifices or captures a pawn, they're not likely to care much about what happens to that pawn. It's probably more along the lines of being "strictly business, nothing personal."

Do you think wolves are emotional when eyeing their prey? Of course you are right that they were more like chess fanatics who would sacrifice whole countries to just have their game.

 

[Stevicus]

So who apart from the US? Do you not realise that the Geopolitical situation of the US is quite special?

Well, there's also Canada. We tried invading them once, but it didn't work out so well. Even Britain - when was the last time they were invaded? 1066 AD?

Central Europe used to be the Battlefield of all the powerful since the end of the Western Roman Empire.

The Thirty Years War claimed the lives of 25-40% of the population of the Holy Roman Empire, aka civilians.
All the Russians ever endured prior to WW2 were the Mongol Invasion from the east and Napoleon from the west. And the rest of Europe also had these two visitors.

It was more than just the Mongols or Napoleon. They were attacked by the Swedes in the north, the Turks in the south, as well as invasions by the Teutonic Knights and other visitors from the West. There were a lot of nomadic tribal groups that went through the area, such as the Polovtsy. In the European part of Russia, the terrain was mostly flat with no real natural defenses or barriers to invasion.

The RSFSR did and it was the major force behind the USSR for its entire existence.
And would you look at that, they even called it the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

It would be a few years before the Soviet state would be organized. They didn't control all of Russia or the former Russian Empire; a lot of it was still under counter-revolutionary control. "Soviet" is just the Russian word for "council." There's nothing insidious about the word.

And regarding the Civil War, ever heard about the weird concept called the self determination of the people?

Yeah, I've heard of it. What a weird concept.

Quite the big topic after WW1.
The Lithuanians, Poles, Estonians, Finns, Ukrainians..... did not want to be part of Russia, whether it was a Monarchy or a Communist Dictatorship.

Hey, I'm not blaming them for that. But the fact remains that they already had been a part of Imperial Russia, living under various Tsarist regimes. So, when the Tsarist government fell and their empire thrown into disarray, it was natural that the chaos would affect the entire empire, even the non-Russian provinces you're referring to. You made it sound like they were already independent and peacefully minding their own business when the Russians just attacked out of the blue. It didn't happen that way.

So they fought back. You do realise that these countries like Ukraine, Lithuania etc all proclaimed their independence right?

And Lithuania got their independence, at least until 1940. Ukraine wasn't so lucky.

Afterwards they were invaded by Russian troops.

It might have had something to do with the ongoing civil war, where these countries also supplied troops to the counter-revolutionary forces which surrounded the Bolsheviks on all sides. They weren't just peacefully sitting there and enjoying their independence. They were still very much participants in the Russian Civil War.

I thought you were American. Aren't you guys pretty big about the whole "Freedom" stuff you got going on there?
These were obvious invasions.

Yes, I am American. Some Americans are big on the whole "Freedom" stuff, while there are still some of us who know the reality of freedom versus the illusion of freedom.

We've invaded some countries, too, and it's for that reason that I understand that just because one country invades another country, it doesn't mean they're planning on invading the entire world.

That was the original point I was addressing from the OP, since a lot of US leaders seemed to believe that "because the Soviets invaded Lithuania, therefore it means they're going to invade America." This was the thinking which dominated the Cold War from the US side, and I was merely pointing out that such thinking is/was flawed.

So Mongols invaded Russia in the Middle Ages. That gives Russia the right to meddle in the affairs of Mongolia in the 20th century.

Amazing.

We're not talking about "right" here. We're just talking about what happens in the real world. If your only point here is to say that "the Russians are a bunch of meanies," then okay. I never said they were a bunch of choir boys.

The whole point of this thread was about how we Americans ever got tangled up with the Russians and why we've been adversaries. It's not because the Russians invaded a few countries here and there. Two of our closest allies invaded countries on nearly every continent, so that's obviously not the reason for the rivalry between the US and USSR.

You really don't know a lot about the fall of the Russian Empire do you?

And you think you do?

All the independence movements within the Empire did not just spring up because of the Russian Civil War.

True, there had been independence movements prior to the Revolution and Civil War, but that's beside the point.

And believe it or don't, not everything that ever happens is about America.

I never said that it was, but at least in this thread, the topic was about America's relationship with Russia.

The Soviet Union directly aided Communists in other countries after taking power.
They wanted a border with Germany to aid the local Communists and achieve another takeover.

Yes, they would do that.

Kind of weird to leave out the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which the Nazis and Soviets carved up Eastern Europe.

Well, I didn't really forget about it, but the topic at hand is pretty intricate and filled with a lot of details. I can't address everything that happened.

Just like Germany the USSR invaded Poland.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Estonia.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Lithuania.
Just like Germany the USSR invaded Latvia.

Germany had been looking east for "lebensraum" for a long time, even before the rise of Hitler. They wanted Russia for its vast arable lands and wealth of resources. To that end, they were going to invade Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia anyway. The people in those countries were screwed no matter how you sliced it. They were going to be ruled either by the Nazis or the Soviets. Any hope of self-determination wasn't going to happen anytime soon.

These people were then ruled by a tiny minority of local Communists who were supported by the Russian Communists.

There is a reason why they all joined NATO and the EU after the fall of the USSR.

Yeah, although the fall of the USSR also nullified the original reason why NATO was ever formed in the first place. So, what's the point of joining NATO now? Not that NATO would refuse them; after all, the more, the merrier. I think the USSR was reforming under Gorbachev. I think a lot of Russians by that time wanted to put the past behind them. They were looking more towards the future. They weren't the same as they were under Stalin or the early Bolsheviks.

It's understandable that the people in those countries would still harbor resentments towards the Russians.

But the only question remaining is what we can expect in the future.

 

[Stevicus]

We're not "reducing" Stalin or Lenin (or Hitler even) to comicbook supervillains. They were terrible enough on their own.

Yes, they were, but that wasn't what I was getting at. My main complaint is that I believe it oversimplifies and clouds history to the point where it generates more confusion than clarity. It makes it seem as if these madmen just appeared out of nowhere and somehow managed to take dictatorial power.

Would have been less of them if not for the Soviet goals being rather public... surprising that you are not understanding those "saber-rattlers" the same way that you do with the Soviet saber-rattlers. Agitators were always ready on the marketplace to defend Soviet peace bombs and loss of civilian life, not much that different from "defending freedom" or "American interests" from an outside perspective.

No, I look at both sets of saber-rattlers somewhat the same way. But it also seems evident that just because someone rattles a saber it doesn't mean that they're actually going to use it. It also doesn't mean that their war-mongering sentiments were shared by everyone in their government.

Do you think wolves are emotional when eyeing their prey? Of course you are right that they were more like chess fanatics who would sacrifice whole countries to just have their game.

I wouldn't know what a wolf feels when eyeing its prey. I would guess that he'd be hungry - and looking at his prey the way many humans look at the Drive-Thru at McDonald's.

But depending on which "prey" we're talking about, I'm not sure if it had much to do with the country itself or any possible benefit it could provide. It was more about where they're located and what countries they were next to. It wasn't like the old days when countries used to fight for "Gold, Glory, and God." Perhaps there was a more indifferent, cynical, calculating, strategic view to it all.

 

[Ellen Brown]

WW2 was more a banking war....financial élites fighting each other

It is sad that so many of our young died or were otherwise damaged in either war.