[Fasces]

So the West should have just forgotten the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact just after WWII, @Fasces?

Yes. That's how you establish an international order based on trust. You break the cycle of gjakmarrja.

[wat0n]

Yes. That's how you establish an international order based on trust. You break the cycle of gjakmarrja.

You need two to tango, though.

[Rancid]

You need two to tango, though.

"trust" is often coded language for "look the other way"

[Fasces]

you need two to tango

And tangos have a lead partner. In this case, it should have been the West. I'm glad we have finally worked our way all the way back to the original point. Do you enjoy this type of pedantic discussion that goes nowhere?

"trust" is often coded language for "look the other way"

Sure, a cynical view. But if one group has explicitly condemned you, insulted you, aided your enemies financially and otherwise, colonized you and so on... Expecting them to trust you without making significant concessions is naive.

The USSR wasn't innocent, but they had built an understanding with FDR's administration that Truman broke entirely, leading to the Cold War. Some short term "pain" in the 1940s to build trust and avoid a Cold War would not have been a bad thing.

Or more recently, accepting the collapse of the USSR and not immediately expanding NATO into Eastern Europe (even though I accept these new sovereign powers had the right to ask for membership) or aiding in the pillage of the country in the 90s would not only have established a better working relationship with Russia today but also robbed Putin of the public outrage that fueled his ascent.

The Wests short-sighted and often aggressively greedy foreign policy creates the conditions for these disasters.

[wat0n]

And tangos have a lead partner. In this case, it should have been the West. I'm glad we have finally worked our way all the way back to the original point. Do you enjoy this type of pedantic discussion that goes nowhere?

You have yet to explain why is it the West which should have put its pants down all the way to please the Soviets, even more so since the failure of appeasement to prevent the war was still fresh on everyone's minds.

[Fasces]

You have yet to explain why is it the West

No, I did here - you just ignored it in favor of the last thirty posts of bullshit that just got us back to the same initial point.

And yes, I do blame Truman - FDR's administration had gone to great lengths to repair the relationship with the Soviet Union during the World War, a legacy that Truman deliberately threw away due to personal anti-communist tendancies and his choice in cabinet. Given Western rhetoric, and Western interference in the Russian Civil War, it is reasonable that the first step to building trust should have (and for a time did) come from Western concessions. They failed to build a world where the strong can't take what they want and are reaping what they sow.

I'll repeat it more explicitly for you:

Because the West regarded the Soviets as a rouge state and had either delayed recognition, or severed recognition, a variety of times in the 1920s and 1930s. Because the West did not invite the Bolsheviks to Versailles, and did not give them a voice regarding former Russian territories. Because the West interfered in the Russian civil war, financially and militarily, in an effort to defeat the Soviets. Because Western politicians frequently voiced their concern that the USSR was a worse evil than Nazi Germany well into WW2, and in some cases, past it.

Given the hostility the West treated the USSR with in the first twenty years of existence, it is understandable that the USSR would not be willing to trust the West and take the first step themselves, so frankly, I blame them less - in much the way that re-establishing trust in former post-colonial territories probably requires the West to be the one apologizing, giving reparations, stopping interference, and so forth.

But sure, @wat0n, tell me why it makes sense that the Soviets were the ones responsible for repairing a relationship they didn't break and offering concessions to Western powers that, under Truman, explicitly and vocally wanted to see them destroyed. To me it sounds a lot like asking the abused wife to stop disobeying her husband to avoid getting beat, but that's just me.

[wat0n]

Interesting to see you pretending the Bolsheviks did not take Russia out of its alliance with the West as soon as they got to power and that they did not try to export their revolution to the West. Nevermind the fact that they effectively colluded with the Nazis to divide up Poland.

It's no wonder the Soviets and the West were mutually suspicious about each other.

[Fasces]

Interesting to see you pretending the Bolsheviks did not take Russia out of its alliance with the West as soon as they got to power and that they did not try to export their revolution to the West

What revolution did the Soviets export in the 1920s? Even the Hungarian Soviet was refused an alliance because of the ongoing Russian Civil War?

Meanwhile, millions of tonnage of American, British, and French equipment (and even a hundred thousand active-duty soldiers!) somehow ended up in the hands of/fighting for the Whites.

But sure - the Russians being forced to sign a seperate treaty with the Germans in a war they had no ability to win is totally an equivalent sin, and the Soviets in 1945 should have trusted the good intentions of the Allied Powers (which they were doing, incidentally, until the Truman debacle).

[Rugoz]

The USSR wasn't innocent..

The USSR was run by a psycho (aka Stalin).

But sure - the Russians being forced to sign a seperate treaty with the Germans in a war they had no ability to win..

Forced to invade Finland etc. I suppose as well .

Or more recently, accepting the collapse of the USSR and not immediately expanding NATO into Eastern Europe (even though I accept these new sovereign powers had the right to ask for membership) or aiding in the pillage of the country in the 90s would not only have established a better working relationship with Russia today but also robbed Putin of the public outrage that fueled his ascent.

What fueled Putin's ascent was the commodity boom and the general recovery of the economy. Saying NATO expansion enabled Putin and Russia would be a functioning liberal democracy at this point if it didn't happen is a huge stretch. More likely it has protected Eastern European countries (such as the Baltics) from incursions of a revitalized Russia.

"Aiding the pillage" is an equally questionable characterization. The corrupt privatization of state assets was Russia's own doing and a consequence of its power structure.

You have yet to explain why is it the West which should have put its pants down all the way to please the Soviets

Time to be epic cucks because Fasces wants us to.

[wat0n]

What revolution did the Soviets export in the 1920s? Even the Hungarian Soviet was refused an alliance because of the ongoing Russian Civil War?

Meanwhile, millions of tonnage of American, British, and French equipment (and even a hundred thousand active-duty soldiers!) somehow ended up in the hands of/fighting for the Whites.

Besides the propaganda the Soviets sent from the very beginning across Europe (particularly Scandinavia) using diplomatic mail you mean?

And this does not get into other hostile measures taken by the Soviet government, which we can discuss if you want.

But sure - the Russians being forced to sign a seperate treaty with the Germans in a war they had no ability to win is totally an equivalent sin, and the Soviets in 1945 should have trusted the good intentions of the Allied Powers (which they were doing, incidentally, until the Truman debacle).

A war they had no hope to win? Germany was the one with little hope of winning the war.

[Fasces]

Time to be epic cucks because Fasces wants us to.

Yep, a perfect mindset regarding international relations.

Would you call a Bavarian a cuck for sacrificing for Saxon interests?

Human history has witnessed a progression from tiny polities to grand unitary naitonal superstructures - and beyond, in cases like the EU. But it requires trust-building and consensus. The West had a real oppurtunity - in the 1940s and 1990s - to begin building a different international structure than the one they inherited. They've squandared that chance, and that's why we're stuck looking at images in Ukraine or Taiwan that we're more used to seeing in the history books.

Besides the propaganda the Soviets sent from the very beginning across Europe (particularly Scandinavia) using diplomatic mail you mean?

And this does not get into other hostile measures taken by the Soviet government, which we can discuss if you want.

In your view, is a nebulous 'propoganda' really equivalent morally to sending tens of thousands of troops to fight a seven year war, alongside millions of tons of other equipment?

If so, then of course you also accept that the current Russian aggression toward the Baltic states and Ukraine is also justified as an equivalent reaction to European/NATO diplomatic efforts.

A war they had no hope to win? Germany was the one with little hope of winning the war.

You're greatly overstating the inevitability of a German defeat in 1917/1918, but eccentric historical takes have been a pattern of yours in this thread.

[wat0n]

In your view, is a nebulous 'propoganda' really equivalent morally to sending tens of thousands of troops to fight a seven year war, alongside millions of tons of other equipment?

It seems it was according to the international custom of the time. The Soviets also did not tolerate anti Bolshevik propaganda either.

And that's not the only reason why several Western countries did not recognize the USSR. Plenty of countries do not like it when a new government goes and repudiates previous bilateral agreements.

If so, then of course you also accept that the current Russian aggression toward the Baltic states and Ukraine is also justified as an equivalent reaction to European/NATO diplomatic efforts.

Well, you actually mentioned why Russia is pressuring Ukraine right now. I can actually understand their thinking, and also understand the West's thinking.

Honestly, this is a case where the powers have every reason to behave like they are doing. Both NATO and Russia have legitimate fears of the intentions of each other. What sucks though is that Ukrainians are bearing the costs.

You're greatly overstating the inevitability of a German defeat in 1917/1918, but eccentric historical takes have been a pattern of yours in this thread.

If you say so

[Fasces]

It seems it was according to the international custom of the time.

If they're not better than we were, they're guilty. Yes or no? Elaborate.

Honestly, this is a case where the powers have every reason to behave like they are doing. Both NATO and Russia have legitimate fears of the intentions of each other. What sucks though is that Ukrainians are bearing the costs.

I'm not making a statement about why they act how they act. That's present tense. I agree with you. I'm making a criticism about the past. Can you respond to that? Do you think the present international situation is just? Why or why not? What could have been done in the past to prevent it? How can future policy-makers learn from these mistakes, if they occured?

[wat0n]

If they're not better than we were, they're guilty. Yes or no? Elaborate.

They were not better, what I don't get is what makes you think then that the Soviets were not guilty. Also, do you have any comments on the Soviet repudiation of the standing bilateral agreements between Russia and other countries?

I'm not making a statement about why they act how they act. That's present tense. I agree with you. I'm making a criticism about the past. Can you respond to that? Do you think the present international situation is just? Why or why not? What could have been done in the past to prevent it? How can future policy-makers learn from these mistakes, if they occured?

Nothing can be done. The international order is inherently anarchic and states will do their utmost to protect their independence, their security and be prosperous, in that order of importance.

[Fasces]

They were not better, what I don't get is what makes you think then that the Soviets were not guilty. Also, do you have any comments on the Soviet repudiation of the standing bilateral agreements between Russia and other countries?

I place the blame 80-20 against the West. I don't care about what treaties an archaic feudal order made - I do care about the actions of the West in the face of the new order, and their failures therein.

Where is your evidence of equivalent action from the Soviets toward the West, by the way?

Nothing can be done. The international order is inherently anarchic and states will do their utmost to protect their independence, their security and be prosperous, in that order of importance.

You sound right at home with apologists in 1700 talking about the existing "ancien regime" superstructure.

Of course things can be done. They have been done - the abolishment of decentralized proto-states in Europe, India, or China; the creation of a European superstructure over the nation-state - creating a new organizing superstructure where might doesn't make right has been done, time and time and time again, on every continent. The West failed to do so when it had the chance, and now that it is weak, it whines about its failure to replace the anarchic international order. You can't expect others to play by rules that you only superficially acknowledge.

I hope their replacements do better, and welcome the oppurtunity to wipe the floor with those that failed to.

Maybe they won't - the existing order hasn't. I prefer maybe to cannot.

Their time has passed them by, and the inherent weaknesses of their own polities are now biting them in the ass. Putin is a monster of their own creation.

[wat0n]

I place the blame 80-20 against the West. I don't care about what treaties an archaic feudal order made - I do care about the actions of the West in the face of the new order, and their failures therein.

Those aren't limited to agreements signed by the Tsars. They included agreements signed by Kerensky.

Where is your evidence of equivalent action from the Soviets toward the West, by the way?

Which one? The repudiation of bilateral agreements or their use of diplomatic mail to send propaganda?

You sound right at home with apologists in 1700 talking about the existing "ancien regime" superstructure.

Funnily enough, one could actually argue that the French revolutionaries were the ones to actually deepen the ancien regime superstructure. They went farther than even Louis XIV in accumulating and centralizing power, after all.

Of course things can be done. They have been done - the abolishment of decentralized proto-states in Europe, India, or China; the creation of a European superstructure over the nation-state - creating a new organizing superstructure where might doesn't make right has been done, time and time and time again, on every continent. The West failed to do so when it had the chance, and now that it is weak, it whines about its failure to replace the anarchic international order. You can't expect others to play by rules that you only superficially acknowledge.

I hope their replacements do better, and welcome the oppurtunity to wipe the floor with those that failed to.

Maybe they won't - the existing order hasn't. I prefer maybe to cannot.

Their time has passed them by, and the inherent weaknesses of their own polities are now biting them in the ass. Putin is a monster of their own creation.

All of those worked because there were shared interests among the actors involved in doing so, particularly regarding the EU (which is far from being a state). But I find it hard to find the shared interests between Putin and the West, at least for now. Maybe if Russia and China relations turn sour things will change.

[Fasces]

Which one? The repudiation of bilateral agreements or their use of diplomatic mail to send propaganda?

... Are you trolling me?

Funnily enough, one could actually argue that the French revolutionaries were the ones to actually deepen the ancien regime superstructure. They went farther than even Louis XIV in accumulating and centralizing power, after all.

You must be...

All of those worked because there were shared interests among the actors involved in doing so, particularly regarding the EU (which is far from being a state).

You are.

[wat0n]

Well @Fasces, I think it's up to you to explain why wouldn't state A be antagonized by state B by having its prior bilateral agreements repudiated by a new government that rose to power in the latter.

Anyway, the Office of the Historian at Department of State has some contemporary documents (mostly diplomatic cables) regarding the Bolshevik Revolution. Here's some on early Bolshevik propaganda efforts abroad:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... iav01/ch16

And here's the decree that repudiated all foreign loans to Soviet citizens and institutions, along with the initial diplomatic response by several countries:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... siav03/d49
https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... siav03/d50

[Rugoz]

Human history has witnessed a progression from tiny polities to grand unitary naitonal superstructures - and beyond, in cases like the EU. But it requires trust-building and consensus. The West had a real oppurtunity - in the 1940s and 1990s - to begin building a different international structure than the one they inherited. They've squandared that chance, and that's why we're stuck looking at images in Ukraine or Taiwan that we're more used to seeing in the history books.

Are you insane? The SU occupied half of Europe after WW2 and Russia today is ultimately the continuation of centuries of strong man rule.

[Rancid]

Are you insane?

Insane or a paid propagandist.