4 ms·

America and Russia had a great relationship until the end of WWI. The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war when the entente (specific

America and Russia had a great relationship until the end of WWI. The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war when the entente (specifically Britain) opened dialogue towards a trade deal. Lenin used them as the great other, despite knowing they wanted normalized relations, and then the USSR taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal. Self determination was US policy at that time (and kind of ever since.)

berdario 4y ago
> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us its draft, we have given our counterdraft, but it is still obvious that the British government is dragging its feet over the agreement because the reactionary war party is still hard at work there So, I don't think it's fair to assume that it was only the UK who wanted normalized relations, and that the difficulties came from only one side. > taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal Which again, seems out of place, since I presume you're referring to events that followed the start of WW2. Talking about WW2, Europe wasn't friendly to the USSR leading up to war: The initial anti-comintern treaty in 1935 was extended to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and China (ruled by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek). In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/322... and of course, Churchill's Operation Unthinkable means that Britan had a deep, deep distrust of the USSR. Despite all this, the USSR asked to join NATO in 1954, but again: it had been rebuffed, along its proposals of reunification and neutrality for Germany. We often forget about all this, and only think of the reasons for why we distrusted the USSR, but we ignore all of the opportunities that we missed for a friendlier relationship.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  > In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed: WOW thank you I never heard of this
  - p_l 4y ago
    Because it's not true - by 1939 discussions that led to Ribbentropp-Molotov were pretty advanced
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  No, we don't forget about revisionist history. We view it with an appropriately skeptical eye. The Telegraph article has a quote from a historian: > "There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia: > NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    > "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." Oh so it was a prank? - - What a weak thesis... > You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia You seem unfamiliar with the fact the USSR asked to join NATO it seems
    - watwut 4y ago
      And NATO rightfully said no, because of what kind of country Russia was. Also, politicians, including and especially Russian politicians at the time having unserious claims is not weak thesis. That was their frequent negotiating/pressuring/rhetorical tactic.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
sofixa 4y ago
The Bolsheviks, who the Entente ( UK, France, US, Japan) deployed troops against and sponsored their enemies? They had valid reasons to at the very least skeptical.

berdario 4y ago

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us its draft, we have given our counterdraft, but it is still obvious that the British government is dragging its feet over the agreement because the reactionary war party is still hard at work there So, I don't think it's fair to assume that it was only the UK who wanted normalized relations, and that the difficulties came from only one side. > taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal Which again, seems out of place, since I presume you're referring to events that followed the start of WW2. Talking about WW2, Europe wasn't friendly to the USSR leading up to war: The initial anti-comintern treaty in 1935 was extended to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and China (ruled by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek). In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/322... and of course, Churchill's Operation Unthinkable means that Britan had a deep, deep distrust of the USSR. Despite all this, the USSR asked to join NATO in 1954, but again: it had been rebuffed, along its proposals of reunification and neutrality for Germany. We often forget about all this, and only think of the reasons for why we distrusted the USSR, but we ignore all of the opportunities that we missed for a friendlier relationship.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
> In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed: WOW thank you I never heard of this
- p_l 4y ago
  Because it's not true - by 1939 discussions that led to Ribbentropp-Molotov were pretty advanced
KerrAvon 4y ago
No, we don't forget about revisionist history. We view it with an appropriately skeptical eye. The Telegraph article has a quote from a historian: > "There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia: > NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  > "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." Oh so it was a prank? - - What a weak thesis... > You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia You seem unfamiliar with the fact the USSR asked to join NATO it seems
  - watwut 4y ago
    And NATO rightfully said no, because of what kind of country Russia was. Also, politicians, including and especially Russian politicians at the time having unserious claims is not weak thesis. That was their frequent negotiating/pressuring/rhetorical tactic.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago

sofixa 4y ago

The Bolsheviks, who the Entente ( UK, France, US, Japan) deployed troops against and sponsored their enemies? They had valid reasons to at the very least skeptical.