NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Buchanan, but...

http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=8681&pg=1

"The morning after Barack Obama's election, the congratulatory message from Moscow was in the chilliest tradition of the Cold War.

"I hope for constructive dialogue with you," said Russia's president, "based on trust and considering each other's interests."

Dmitry Medvedev went on that day, in his first State of the Union, to charge America with fomenting the Russia-Georgia war and said he has been "forced" to put Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad to counter the U.S. missile shield President Bush pledged to Poland.

Medvedev had painted Obama into a corner. No new American president can be seen as backing down from a Russian challenge.

Three days later, Polish President Lech Kaczynski tried to box Barack in. His office declared that, during a phone conversation with Kaczynski, Obama had promised to deploy the anti-missile missiles.

Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough denied it.

One week later, however, Medvedev wisely walked the cat back.

During the G-20 summit in Washington, he told the Council on Foreign Relations the issue of Russian missiles in Kaliningrad "is not closed. I am personally ready to discuss it, and I hope that the new president and the new administration will have the will to discuss it."

President-elect Obama should not let this opportunity slip by, for a second signal came last week that Russia does not want the Cold War II that the departing neocons wish to leave on his plate.

Moscow offered Spain and Germany use of Russian territory to supply NATO troops in Afghanistan. As our supply line from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Khyber Pass to Kabul grows perilous, this has to be seen as a gesture of friendship by a Russia that shares, as a fellow victim of Islamic terror, the U.S. detestation of al-Qaida.

Opportunity also presents itself with the official report of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on the August war. According to The New York Times, the OSCE found, consistent with Moscow's claims, that Georgia "attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm."

Russia's response — running the Georgian Army out of South Ossetia, occupying Abkhazia and recognizing both as independent nations — may seem disproportionate and excessive. But, contrary to John ("We are all Georgians now!") McCain, Moscow has a compelling case that Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvili started the fire.

Medvedev is now on a four-nation Latin tour with stops in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Fidel Castro's Cuba. But this seems more like diplomatic tit-for-tat for high-profile U.S. visits to Tbilisi and other ex-Soviet republics than laying the groundwork for some anti-American alliance.

For, just as for Washington the relationship with Moscow is far more crucial than any tie to Tbilisi, so Moscow's tie to Washington is surely far more crucial to Russia than any tie to Caracas or Havana.

With these opening moves, how might Obama test the water for a better relationship with the Russia of Medvedev and Vladimir Putin?

First, Obama should restate his campaign position that no anti-missile system will be deployed in Poland until fully tested.

Second, he should declare that, as this system is designed to defend against an Iranian ICBM with a nuclear warhead, it will not be deployed until Iran has tested an ICBM and an atomic device.

So long as the Iranian threat remains potential, not actual, there is no need to deploy a U.S. missile defense in Poland against it.

Third, he should invite Medvedev to Camp David to discuss what more they might do together to ensure that no such Iranian threat, to either nation, ever materializes. For if Iran does not test an ICBM or atomic device, what is the need for a missile defense in East Europe?

Fourth, invoking the principle of self-determination, Obama might propose a plebiscite in Georgia and Abkhazia to determine if these people wish to return to Tbilisi's rule.

The second bone of contention between us is prospective NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine.

As NATO is a military alliance, at the heart of which is Article V, which obligates every ally to come to the defense of a member who is attacked, to bring Georgia in would be madness.

To cede to Saakashvili power to bring us into confrontation with Russia would be to rival British stupidity in giving Polish colonels power to drag the empire into war with Germany over Danzig, which is exactly what the Polish colonels proceeded to do in 1939.

Before the NATO summit next week, Obama should signal to NATO, and the Bush administration, that nothing irreversible should be done to put Ukraine or Georgia on a path to membership.

First, because the president-elect will decide himself about new war guarantees in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus. Second, because these are matters to be taken up at a Medvedev-Obama summit, not foreclosed for him by neocons now trooping home to their think tanks. "

Edit: Forgot the Obvious yet Mandatory line: Discuss!

Your analysis makes sense to me. Id like to get along with Russia.

Look here the deal. We are too broke now to deploy the missile "shield" in Poland. Russia is too broke to deploy the counter measures. All we are doing is posturing to make it look like the other one backed down.

There is a point in there. The link between Iran and the missile shield should make it easy to have the following conversation:

Obama: "We don't want to get nuked, and we don't want our allies to get nuked. You don't like the missile shield, though we still don't know why, so why don't you make sure we won't need it?"

Medvedev: "How?"

Obama: "Stop blocking sanctions at the UNSC and impose your own. Stop building Iranian reactors and other nuclear technology. You have talked the talk, it's time to actually walk the walk."

There is a point in there. The link between Iran and the missile shield should make it easy to have the following conversation:

Obama: "We don't want to get nuked, and we don't want our allies to get nuked. You don't like the missile shield, though we still don't know why, so why don't you make sure we won't need it?"

Medvedev: "How?"

Obama: "Stop blocking sanctions at the UNSC and impose your own. Stop building Iranian reactors and other nuclear technology. You have talked the talk, it's time to actually walk the walk."

Uranium used in nukes is far more enriched then Uranium used in power plants. It's in Russia's economic interest not to give Iran the enrichment technology, b/c that way they get paid for the Uranium and for enriching it. Also, Iran has been extremely nice to Russia, I cannot say the same for the US. And Russia actually has good ties with Israel and great ties with Iran. So maybe, instead of the missile shield, US, Russia, France, Germany, China, Iran and Israel could sit down and negotiate. There Iran can assure France & Germany as the EU Reps that they won't target Poland. Interesting thing - the Poles actually think the "shield" is against Russia...

Uranium used in nukes is far more enriched then Uranium used in power plants. It's in Russia's economic interest not to give Iran the enrichment technology, b/c that way they get paid for the Uranium and for enriching it. Also, Iran has been extremely nice to Russia, I cannot say the same for the US. And Russia actually has good ties with Israel and great ties with Iran. So maybe, instead of the missile shield, US, Russia, France, Germany, China, Iran and Israel could sit down and negotiate. There Iran can assure France & Germany as the EU Reps that they won't target Poland. Interesting thing - the Poles actually think the "shield" is against Russia...

Might work, but good luck getting the bolded countries to even sit down in the same room.

Might work, but good luck getting the bolded countries to even sit down in the same room.

If US/Russia/China/France/Germany agree on something, I've yet to see it not get done. Niether Israel nor Iran can oppose all 5. Besides it doesn't have to be in Israel or Iran, it could be in, umm, does Germany have any luxury resorts? I'm sure one of those will work.

Uranium used in nukes is far more enriched then Uranium used in power plants. It's in Russia's economic interest not to give Iran the enrichment technology, b/c that way they get paid for the Uranium and for enriching it.
I know. But the offer to do the management of the entire fuel chain was rejected by Iran. Russia has asserted time and time again that it doesn't want Iran to have nukes either. Unlike the US, it has the leverage however to do something. Russia is building most of Iran's nuclear reactors, without Russian help there will be no Iranian civilian nuclear industry. Hence why Russia should be able to dictate the terms under which Iran can have such an industry, or at least insure that Iran actually sticks to the terms of the NPT.

But they're doing jack all, which is not good enough. Worse, they have voted against further sanctions at the UN multiple times.

Also, Iran has been extremely nice to Russia, I cannot say the same for the US. And Russia actually has good ties with Israel and great ties with Iran. So maybe, instead of the missile shield, US, Russia, France, Germany, China, Iran and Israel could sit down and negotiate. There Iran can assure France & Germany as the EU Reps that they won't target Poland.
Believe it or not, but US Presidents are no more obliged to compromise the safety of their citizens than the leaders of any other country. If there is a way to protect Americans from nuclear attacks, then the President is pretty much obliged to seriously consider it, and if it turns out to be economically feasible, then it's a good thing to do.

That doesn't preclude talking and diplomacy, at best it complements it. But unlike in the case of North Korea, the US can't actually get a decent set of talks together because not only do the Iranians and Israelis not speak to each other on principle, but neither China nor Russia have shown any intention of actually seriously wanting to prevent Iran from having nukes. The US can't hope to achieve anything there.

Interesting thing - the Poles actually think the "shield" is against Russia...
We've talked about all this, but you still haven't understood any of it. The Poles don't think the shield is against Russia, they think the Patriots that they're getting in return for letting the US station part of the shield in their country are.

I know. But the offer to do the management of the entire fuel chain was rejected by Iran. Russia has asserted time and time again that it doesn't want Iran to have nukes either. Unlike the US, it has the leverage however to do something. Russia is building most of Iran's nuclear reactors, without Russian help there will be no Iranian civilian nuclear industry. Hence why Russia should be able to dictate the terms under which Iran can have such an industry, or at least insure that Iran actually sticks to the terms of the NPT. But they're doing jack all, which is not good enough. Worse, they have voted against further sanctions at the UN multiple times.

Russia may be doing this in part to punish the US. After Beslan, Saakashvili supported the Chechens. The US supported Saakashvili. You can see why this would piss off Russia enough to forego economic gains. Also, the absurd negativity in the American Press about Putin has to stop. Yes critique him, but not to the point of absurdity. I mean don't call Litvinenko an investigative journalist! Don't call Putin a terrorist for defending his own base! Don't pretend there's another Cold War coming around. The Zubov - judge critique - that was very fair. Putin's actions on Moldova - those were fair to criticism. The Kursk - all fair. But it becomes a bit absurd when Putin becomes dictatorial by a decision that he didn't even make! And stay away from Russia's borders. Can Ukraine offer the US something that Germany cannot? Is Georgia Democratic? Would it even be an asset? Stop encouraging the Baltics to discriminate against Russians living there. Russia was never against Ukraine in the EU; Russia was against Ukraine in NATO. And no more Unilateral Declarations. Kosovo was a mess, no more. Move into Serbia and pick up the Depleted Uranium dropped by NATO and leave.

Now Russia has to compromise here too. Russia's media is begining to rival America's which is bad and needs to change. Russia shouldn't try to sanction Poland. Russia should allow more Western Journalist into Russia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia should open up, and sign the CFE - with the Amendment of course.

Only then can the two countries be partners. An Alliance with Russia is possible, but it requires a lot of hard work from both sides. And finally, Russia shouldn't be demonized; critiqued yes, demonized no; contrary to the popular myth, Putin isn't the Tsar with Absolute Power. He still has opposition, and its coming from all sides. The CPRF in Russia began quoting CNN in their arguments, saying that Medvedev's too soft on the US. The 2008 South Ossetian War Criticism, was foolish, and doesn't bode well for international media that criticised in Russia. The war is insanely popular in Russia, with well over 90% of Russians saying that it was a major victory and they'd do it again. It makes the Russians proud. Yes Georgia was little, but only one mistake has been made in the war - the ordering of TU-22 (the older generation plane) into battle. Calling the war unjustifiable and "The Red Menace Strike" in Russia is journalistic suicide, and you can damn well bet that Russian channels are going to pound CNN over it, again and again and again. This hurts Western Credibility in Russia, much more then Putin could ever have, even if he wanted to. The US must first regenerate its credibility with Russia, just as Russia must do with the US.


Believe it or not, but US Presidents are no more obliged to compromise the safety of their citizens than the leaders of any other country. If there is a way to protect Americans from nuclear attacks, then the President is pretty much obliged to seriously consider it, and if it turns out to be economically feasible, then it's a good thing to do.

That doesn't preclude talking and diplomacy, at best it complements it. But unlike in the case of North Korea, the US can't actually get a decent set of talks together because not only do the Iranians and Israelis not speak to each other on principle, but neither China nor Russia have shown any intention of actually seriously wanting to prevent Iran from having nukes. The US can't hope to achieve anything there.

See above.

We've talked about all this, but you still haven't understood any of it. The Poles don't think the shield is against Russia, they think the Patriots that they're getting in return for letting the US station part of the shield in their country are.

I've heard that the Poles thought the actual "shield" was against Russia. Not just the Patriots. I don't really think anyone except the Poles even cares about the Patriots.

I've heard that the Poles thought the actual "shield" was against Russia. Not just the Patriots. I don't really think anyone except the Poles even cares about the Patriots.

well Russia is about over due for another invasion of Poland.

well Russia is about over due for another invasion of Poland.

Nah, too boring. It's like the Washington Capitals playing the Minnesotta Waves. You know who's going to win.

And if you don't get that analogy, you should study hockey! :P

BTW: hockey league rankings:

1. Olympics - duh!
2. World Championship/NHL
3. KHL (moving on up...)

Nah, too boring. It's like the Washington Capitals playing the Minnesotta Waves. You know who's going to win.

And if you don't get that analogy, you should study hockey! :P

BTW: hockey league rankings:

1. Olympics - duh!
2. World Championship/NHL
3. KHL (moving on up...)

not really. You know the poles won in 1920, the last time they had a clean fair match.
Prior to that the Russians were invading a Poland that had nothing left.
and prior to that they had the Nazi help and split the country up with them.

I wouldn't say a Poland Russian match would be a guaranteed victory for Russia. Any group of people who charge tanks with Calvary has my respect.

I wouldn't say a Poland Russian match would be a guaranteed victory for Russia. Any group of people who charge tanks with Calvary has my respect.

One, I have heard that that story is, in fact, a myth. Two, greater ball size is a poor compensator for vastly superior firepower and numbers.

Obama: "We don't want to get nuked, and we don't want our allies to get nuked. You don't like the missile shield, though we still don't know why, so why don't you make sure we won't need it?"
It pretty easy to see why Russia doesn't like or agree with the concept of the missile shield - it's just a policy evolution from the 'Star Wars' project in the 80's.


Obama: "Stop blocking sanctions at the UNSC and impose your own. Stop building Iranian reactors and other nuclear technology. You have talked the talk, it's time to actually walk the walk."
Meh. Easy response - you stop blocking resolutions that harm your interests, and we'll stop blocking resolutions that harm ours.

Yeah, right psychotic. Superpowers are always going to veto things not in their interests. Of course many superpowers are too dumb to see things that may be in their long term interests because they look no further than their short term interests.

One, I have heard that that story is, in fact, a myth.
Correct:

Apart from countless battles and skirmishes in which the Polish cavalry units used the infantry tactics, there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful.

The first of them, and perhaps the best known, happened on September 1, 1939, during the Battle of Krojanty. During the action, elements of the Polish 18th Uhlan Regiment met a large group of German infantry resting in the woods near the village of Krojanty. Colonel Mastalerz decided to take the enemy by surprise and immediately ordered a cavalry charge, a tactic the Polish cavalry rarely used as their main weapon. The charge was successful and the German infantry unit was dispersed.

The same day, German war correspondents were brought to the battlefield together with two journalists from Italy. They were shown the battlefield, the corpses of Polish cavalrymen and their horses, alongside German tanks that had arrived at the field of battle only after the engagement. One of the Italian correspondents sent home an article, in which he described the bravery and heroism of Polish soldiers, who charged German tanks with their sabres and lances. Other possible source of the myth is a quote from Heinz Guderian’s memoirs, in which he asserted that the Pomeranian Brigade had charged on German tanks with swords and lances.[3] Although such a charge did not happen and there were no tanks used during the combat, the myth was disseminated by German propaganda during the war with a staged Polish cavalry charge shown in their 1941 reel called “Geschwader Lützow”. In that movie Luftwaffe Avia 534B trainer planes of Czech origin acted as Polish PZL-11 fighters. After the end of World War II the same fraud was again being disseminated by Soviet propaganda as an example of the stupidity of Polish commanders and authorities, who allegedly did not prepare their country for war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers.

One, I have heard that that story is, in fact, a myth. Two, greater ball size is a poor compensator for vastly superior firepower and numbers.

It is sort of a myth. they charged a infantry unit that contained Armored personnel carriers. So depending on which language you are translating into and how lose your definition of tank is.

Ball size aside the mission was successful they delayed the German advance for one day.

I enjoyed that up until this part:

To cede to Saakashvili power to bring us into confrontation with Russia would be to rival British stupidity in giving Polish colonels power to drag the empire into war with Germany over Danzig, which is exactly what the Polish colonels proceeded to do in 1939.

The man can't go an entire article without talking about Nazi Germany. What is his deal?

not really. You know the poles won in 1920, the last time they had a clean fair match.
Prior to that the Russians were invading a Poland that had nothing left.
and prior to that they had the Nazi help and split the country up with them.

I wouldn't say a Poland Russian match would be a guaranteed victory for Russia. Any group of people who charge tanks with Calvary has my respect.

Wait a sec, you call the 1920's, where everyone ganged up on Russia, a clean and fair match? Have you any idea how many countries invaded Russia to "support the Tsar" while preaching self-determination in other countries? Let's see here, the US, UK, Germany, Japan, Poland, Baltic States...

So when it's Russia + Germany vs. Poland - it's unfair. When it's US, UK, Germany, Japan, Poland against Russia, that's a clean fight, right?

I enjoyed that up until this part:



The man can't go an entire article without talking about Nazi Germany. What is his deal?

Oh come on. There's gotta be something missing in a right winger's article, something not right. You outta know that by now. Plus he talked about plebicites in Georgia and Abkhazia, whereas it should've been Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I'm not saying the article is perfect, I just like the turning of events from "Russia is evil for self-defense" to "oh crap, Georgia did attack first and apparently Russia can fight, we screwed up".

Wait a sec, you call the 1920's, where everyone ganged up on Russia, a clean and fair match?
I'll address this at the end.

Have you any idea how many countries invaded Russia to "support the Tsar" while preaching self-determination in other countries?
The Bolsheviks weren't much for self-determination, either. Lenin routed whatever the parliament was called as soon as it became clear democracy didn't mean exclusive rule of the Party.

Let's see here, the US, UK
Secured some White Sea's ports, offered support for Tsarist. Britain done some horseriding in Middle Asia, AFAIR.

Japan
I know little of this theatre.

Germany
Did invade as part of, you know, WW the First. The Ober-Ost kept the positions they gained in their final offensive "just in case". By the way, you surely know Lenin dropped the claim to lands west of frontline in his truce with Germans.

Poland
Was in process of rebuilding itself after 123 years of political nonexistence; did not invade Russia proper, the farthest venture east the Poles made was for Kiev, to secure ground for their Ukrainian ally Symon Petlura.

Baltic States...
What they did was to appear on the map; I consider a possibility you meant Judenich's forces, which were stationed in Estonia in agreement with Estonian authorities (not that Ests had a big choice).

And now, we come to what I've promised to address:

Wait a sec, you call the 1920's, where everyone ganged up on Russia, a clean and fair match?

During 1920's there was a civil war in Russia, with Western powers, not willing to engage in another war just after the end of such an incredibly bloody one, supporting one of the sides by shipping the materiel through a handful of secured ports (again, I don't know much about Japan's actions at the time). The Bolsheviks still had enough resources to mount a full-scale invasion of Poland, and were ambitious enough to have a plan for Germany.

During 1939 there was an invasion of, probably, two greatest military juggernauts of the world on some small backward country which happened to stand in the way.


British stupidity in giving Polish colonels power to drag the empire into war with Germany over Danzig, which is exactly what the Polish colonels proceeded to do in 1939.


I only wish there are some chavs of Polish roots living in this dude's neighbourhood, who'd like to discuss different points of view on the matter.

When has America ever been involved with Russia to its own benefit?

SNIP


They "appeared" on the map of what initially was the Russian Empire, ergo they fought against Russia. Saying that it was really self-defense, it the same as saying that the Confedaracy engaged in self-defense against the Union by firing on Fort Sumpter. Also, the British and Americans were worn out by WWI, I'll not dispute that. But they still interfered in the affairs of the Russia, because when a country has a revolution, and you take advantage of it and "secure" certain key points - you are ganging up on it.

About Poland - yeah in 1939 it was unfair. It was just as unfair as what Poland did in 1920. In fact, I've criticized USSR's move into Poland in 1939 in my previous posts. But if I may take you back to 1612, when Russia was again in chaos - in came the Poles. It wasn't just a one time thing, like they did in 1920. Russia only had two major upheavals, and the Poles took advantage of both of them. In addition the Poles ganged up on Russia after the Mongols beat the Russians on Kalka. So it's not really the evil Russia vs. the noble Poland. The first three partitions of Poland, were well deserved. Poland has shown in the past that it would gang up on Russia and Russia simply returned the favor.

As for Germany - they knew that Russia was out cold since Tannenberg. Everything from that point on was not a neccessity to German military victory. Yet Germans went ahead and invaded anyways.

Also, Russia had been at war since 1914. What offensive could they possibly mount in 1920? The myth that Russia has an endless supply of people is plain bullshit. By 1920 - Russia ran out of armies. So did everyone else. Looking at the situation critically, one can see that Russia could not mount an offensive to reclaim Poland that they've lost, because the Tsar was an idiot who trusted France and the UK and attacked, when he should've just plain defended! 1939 was revenge for 1920, at least in the eyes of Stalin. It was wrong to place revenge before national interests, it was Stalin's mistake, and Stalin fucked up. No question there.

But modernly, Russia v. Poland - oh come on. You serious? One on one, you think Poland would stand a chance? Russia can easily overwhelm the Polish Navy, gain Air Superiority, and bombard Poland before making an attack. Furthermore, Poland has nothing to actually oppose Russia's rocket launchers. I mean one on one, right now, it would be Russia all the way. Now one may say, what about NATO? Well I've repeatedly said one on one, in a hypothetical scenario. Today it doesn't make sense for Russia to invade Poland, and assimilating Poland into Russian society, even if the invasion was successful, would just be a waste of resources, that aren't a shortage in Russia, but aren't plentiful either. So militarily - it could be done, but what's the point? Russia could've taken Tbilisi too. Economically it'd be a disaster. Poland has nothing to fear, unless a Russian Bush, or worst Cheney, is elected. Then.... the Western Corporate Media will realize that criticizing Putin wasn't the brighest idea they've had.

when has america ever been involved with russia to its own benefit?

1918.

1918.

Please explain.

Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

These are the numbers of the foreign soldiers who occupied the indicated regions of Russia:

50,000 Czechoslovaks (along the Trans-Siberian railway) [5]
28,000 Japanese, later increased to 70,000 (all in the Vladivostok region) [6]
24,000 Greeks (in Crimea)[7]
16,000 British (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)
13,000 Americans (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)
12,000 French and French colonial (mostly in the Arkhangelsk and Odessa regions)
12,000 Poles (mostly in Crimea and the Ukraine)
4,000 Canadians (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)
4,000 Serbs (in the Arkhangelsk region)
4,000 Romanians (in the Arkhangelsk region)
2,000 Italians (in the Arkhangelsk region)
2,000 Chinese (in the Vladivostok region)
560 Australians (mostly in the Arkhangelsk regions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

After they returned home, the Polar Bear veterans lobbied their state and Federal governments to obtain funds and the necessary approvals to retrieve the bodies of more than 125 U.S. soldiers who were known to have been left behind in North Russia.

125 soldiers don't just die if there's no fighting.

"The Polar Bear Expedition was sent to Russia by the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in response to requests from the governments of Great Britain and France to join the Allied Intervention in North Russia (also known as the North Russia Campaign). The British and French had three objectives for this intervention:[3]

preventing Allied war material stockpiles in Archangelsk (originally intended for the recently collapsed Eastern Front) from falling into German or Bolshevik hands,
mounting an offensive to rescue the Czech Legion, which was stranded along the Trans-Siberian Railroad and
resurrecting the Eastern Front by defeating the Red Army with the assistance of the Czech Legion and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force drawn from the local citizenry - and in the process stopping the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.
On July 14, 1918, the U.S. Army's 85th Division left their training camp at Camp Custer, Michigan for the Western Front in France. Three days later, President Wilson agreed to a limited participation by American troops in the Allied Intervention with the stipulation that they would only be used for guarding the stockpiled war material. When U.S. Army General John J. Pershing received the directive from President Wilson, he changed the orders for the 339th Infantry Regiment, along with the First Battalion of the 310th Engineers plus a few other ancillary units from the 85th Division. Instead of heading for France, these units were trained and re-outfitted in England with Russian guns and then sent to North Russia, where they arrived in Arkhangelsk on September 4, 1918 and placed under British command.

See American Expeditionary Force Siberia for information on the 7,950 American soldiers and officers [4] who were sent to Vladivostok, Russia at the same time. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

"The American Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia) was a United States Army force that was involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russia, during the tail end of World War I after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920."

What the Western Powers were doing, was that they were trying to retain the Tsar, so that they could continue extracting natural resources from Russia, under of course the guise of rescuing the Czechs. Even though the Americans behaved,

"Unlike his Allied counterparts, General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legions evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks. Repeatedly calling for restraint, Graves often clashed with commanders of British, French and Japanese forces, who also had troops in the region and who wanted him to take a more active part in the military intervention in Siberia."

they still assisted those who did not.

Thanks for the explanation. Hats off to you.

As for Germany - they knew that Russia was out cold since Tannenberg. Everything from that point on was not a neccessity to German military victory. Yet Germans went ahead and invaded anyways.
Weirdly, the Russian leadership didn't concede defeat, and instead attacked and defended Polish (not Russian) territory against Austrian troops. So it turned out the war was still going, which necessitated some sort of action by Germany to get the Austrians out of trouble.

Let's face it, the Russians in WWI were asking for it when they mobilised against Germany, thus necessitating the Schlieffen Plan to be set in motion, and then when they kept fighting after they were "out cold". By your logic, the US should never have fought back against Japan - even immediately after Pearl Harbour the Japanese had no chance of winning.

***EDITED***

They "appeared" on the map of what initially was the Russian Empire, ergo they fought against Russia. Saying that it was really self-defense, it the same as saying that the Confedaracy engaged in self-defense against the Union by firing on Fort Sumpter.

Okay, now I understand: Southerners were a different ethnicity belonging to a different family of peoples (BTW Ests aren't even Indo-Europeans), and Baltics seceded because Russia wanted to free their slaves. This is sarcasm, but I hope you see what is my point. Besides, what you say means Abkhazians and Ossetians invaded Georgia, which means they had full rights to defend self.

Also, the British and Americans were worn out by WWI, I'll not dispute that. But they still interfered in the affairs of the Russia, because when a country has a revolution, and you take advantage of it and "secure" certain key points - you are ganging up on it.

So, by the analogy above, Russia interfered in affairs of Georgia.

About Poland - yeah in 1939 it was unfair. It was just as unfair as what Poland did in 1920.

As I said, Poland was struggling for independence. You probably know before the Partitionment its borders were as far as Kiev east.

In fact, I've criticized USSR's move into Poland in 1939 in my previous posts. But if I may take you back to 1612, when Russia was again in chaos - in came the Poles. It wasn't just a one time thing, like they did in 1920. Russia only had two major upheavals, and the Poles took advantage of both of them. In addition the Poles ganged up on Russia after the Mongols beat the Russians on Kalka. So it's not really the evil Russia vs. the noble Poland. The first three partitions of Poland, were well deserved. Poland has shown in the past that it would gang up on Russia and Russia simply returned the favor.

You seem to not know that Russia and multiple medieval Ruthenian principalities aren't the same, and Lithuania is not Poland. Destruction of Kiev created a vacuum of power filled by Lithuania and Muscovy, who divided Rus lands between themselves. Lithuania then entered an union with Poland. Is this case an example of Evil A vs Noble B? No, rather politics of the era, I'd say. And, as we've both agreed, it's not Evil A vs Noble B, it's not poor Russia being bullied by bad bad Pollacks either.

As for digging in the past: Persia ganged up on Greece, what gives the Western civilisation the right to invade Iran. :P


Besides, what you say reminds me of a certain Frederick of Prussia quote. When asked what is his justification for taking part in the Partitionment, he said (I'm not only quoting from memory, but also translating, so actual quote may be a little different) "I have historians, they are the ones to find such". Yekaterina of Russia didn't take over half of Commonwealth because more than one and a half century earlier Poles were in Moscow, but because she could.

Also, Lithuanians did not gang up with Mongols (and, say, Swedes) on Russia because it was weak and ripe for conquer. Instead, the Golden Horde destroyed the force which had the strongest claim to the land, the Kievan Rus. The Lithuanians took advantage of this and conquered a number of nearby principalities. The other expansion-minded player left in the area was Muscovy. Thus, two competitors stood up as possible uniters of Rus.

As for Polish intervention in 1612&around: at first, at the court of one of Polish magnates appeared a man claiming to be a rightful heir of the late dynasty. An expedition was mounted to protect his (and by extention, Polish-Lithuanian) interests. In fact, it was initially greeted well by the boyars, they even offered the crown to the son of Polish king (I can only pity the dude and his Pa were too dogmatic on religion). Only after some time the relations between locals and intervents deteriorated.


As for Germany - they knew that Russia was out cold since Tannenberg. Everything from that point on was not a neccessity to German military victory. Yet Germans went ahead and invaded anyways.

See Leonstein. By the way: someone invades you. The war starts. What do you do - try to defeat the enemy, or hold the round hoping he'll get bored? Hint: chav lore does not necessarily apply to war and politics.

Also, Russia had been at war since 1914. What offensive could they possibly mount in 1920? The myth that Russia has an endless supply of people is plain bullshit. By 1920 - Russia ran out of armies.

It ran out of armies so horribly it managed to amass some one or two hundred thousand of soldiers.

So did everyone else. Looking at the situation critically, one can see that Russia could not mount an offensive to reclaim Poland that they've lost, because the Tsar was an idiot who trusted France and the UK and attacked, when he should've just plain defended! 1939 was revenge for 1920, at least in the eyes of Stalin. It was wrong to place revenge before national interests, it was Stalin's mistake, and Stalin fucked up. No question there.

See Leonstein. Also: what was in the eyes of Stalin I can't say for sure. He may have as well prepared for invasion of Western Europe. However, revenge quite fits - Stalin had it personal with Poland (a gossip has it that it was personal since he was thrown out of Polish restaurant - surely another example of bullying the evil Poles done to Russians since the dawn of man; more actual would be to say the reason was his poor performance in 1920).

But modernly, Russia v. Poland - oh come on. You serious? One on one, you think Poland would stand a chance? Russia can easily overwhelm the Polish Navy, gain Air Superiority, and bombard Poland before making an attack. Furthermore, Poland has nothing to actually oppose Russia's rocket launchers. I mean one on one, right now, it would be Russia all the way. Now one may say, what about NATO? Well I've repeatedly said one on one, in a hypothetical scenario. Today it doesn't make sense for Russia to invade Poland, and assimilating Poland into Russian society, even if the invasion was successful, would just be a waste of resources, that aren't a shortage in Russia, but aren't plentiful either. So militarily - it could be done, but what's the point? Russia could've taken Tbilisi too. Economically it'd be a disaster. Poland has nothing to fear, unless a Russian Bush, or worst Cheney, is elected. Then.... the Western Corporate Media will realize that criticizing Putin wasn't the brighest idea they've had.

It probably was some earlier discussion that may have given such an impression, but I did not argue that Poland would defeat Russian invasion now. I wasn't even discussing modern times in my post.

After they returned home, the Polar Bear veterans lobbied their state and Federal governments to obtain funds and the necessary approvals to retrieve the bodies of more than 125 U.S. soldiers who were known to have been left behind in North Russia.

125 soldiers don't just die if there's no fighting.

But of course - they could have fought cold and diseases :P

"The Polar Bear Expedition was sent to Russia by the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in response to requests from the governments of Great Britain and France to join the Allied Intervention in North Russia (also known as the North Russia Campaign). The British and French had three objectives for this intervention:[3]

preventing Allied war material stockpiles in Archangelsk (originally intended for the recently collapsed Eastern Front) from falling into German or Bolshevik hands,
mounting an offensive to rescue the Czech Legion, which was stranded along the Trans-Siberian Railroad and
resurrecting the Eastern Front by defeating the Red Army with the assistance of the Czech Legion and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force drawn from the local citizenry - and in the process stopping the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.
On July 14, 1918, the U.S. Army's 85th Division left their training camp at Camp Custer, Michigan for the Western Front in France. Three days later, President Wilson agreed to a limited participation by American troops in the Allied Intervention with the stipulation that they would only be used for guarding the stockpiled war material. When U.S. Army General John J. Pershing received the directive from President Wilson, he changed the orders for the 339th Infantry Regiment, along with the First Battalion of the 310th Engineers plus a few other ancillary units from the 85th Division. Instead of heading for France, these units were trained and re-outfitted in England with Russian guns and then sent to North Russia, where they arrived in Arkhangelsk on September 4, 1918 and placed under British command.

See American Expeditionary Force Siberia for information on the 7,950 American soldiers and officers [4] who were sent to Vladivostok, Russia at the same time. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America..._Force_Siberia

"The American Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia) was a United States Army force that was involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russia, during the tail end of World War I after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920."

What the Western Powers were doing, was that they were trying to retain the Tsar, so that they could continue extracting natural resources from Russia, under of course the guise of rescuing the Czechs. Even though the Americans behaved,

"Unlike his Allied counterparts, General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legions evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks. Repeatedly calling for restraint, Graves often clashed with commanders of British, French and Japanese forces, who also had troops in the region and who wanted him to take a more active part in the military intervention in Siberia."

they still assisted those who did not.


So, seems the Western powers wanted a) not let their goods be stolen; b) rescue the Czechs stranded in Russia after the collapse of Tsardom; c) fight Bolsheviks. In other words, they reluctantly tried to help their ally, Tsar Nicholas II, against the rebels led by German agent (yep - I'm talking 'bout Lenin here. Germans let him go to Russia, hoping he'll wreck enough havoc to kick Russia out of war. Seems he succeded, as he signed a truce with Germans ceding the claim to basically what lies west of modern Russian border).

Russia knows that Obama is a chance to regain some standing in the world; let's face it, Obama's as soft as butter.

let's face it, Obama's as soft as butter.
In or out of the fridge?

In or out of the fridge?

on the stove

They "appeared" on the map of what initially was the Russian Empire, ergo they fought against Russia. Saying that it was really self-defense, it the same as saying that the Confedaracy engaged in self-defense against the Union by firing on Fort Sumpter.

Soviet Russia was not considered legitimate successor of Russian Empire by most of world and also by large number of Russians themselves. Not to mention that Lenin actually seceded those territories in Brest-Litovsk anyway.
Also there was no Fort Sumpter (or slavery if you didnt know) in Baltics, Red Army rolled in as soon as possible then Germans retreated while Baltic states had yet almost no armed forces, as organising defence became possible only then German rule ended. Almost whole Latvia and large part of Estonia and Lithuania were conquered before Soviet advance was stopped.

As for Germany - they knew that Russia was out cold since Tannenberg. Everything from that point on was not a neccessity to German military victory. Yet Germans went ahead and invaded anyways.

ROFLMAO!!!
While being "out cold" as you claim, Russia still continued war, advanced into Austria-Hungarian (and later also Turkish) territory and did not show any intention to sign peace. Forcing enemy to sign peace in one front, to concentrate on another front, was matter of life and death for Germany, as central powers were effectively surrounded.

Olmedreca;14252372']1. Soviet Russia was not considered legitimate successor of Russian Empire by most of world and also by large number of Russians themselves. Not to mention that Lenin actually seceded those territories in Brest-Litovsk anyway.
Also there was no Fort Sumpter (or slavery if you didnt know) in Baltics, Red Army rolled in as soon as possible then Germans retreated while Baltic states had yet almost no armed forces, as organising defence became possible only then German rule ended. Almost whole Latvia and large part of Estonia and Lithuania were conquered before Soviet advance was stopped.



2. ROFLMAO!!!
While being "out cold" as you claim, Russia still continued war, advanced into Austria-Hungarian (and later also Turkish) territory and did not show any intention to sign peace. Forcing enemy to sign peace in one front, to concentrate on another front, was matter of life and death for Germany, as central powers were effectively surrounded.

1. Soviet RUSSIA not considered the successor of the RUSSIAN Empire? Are you serious? Also, Lenin cannot secede territories, only territories can secede. Lenin can only Cede territorries, but he didn't really do that either, telling Trotsky "don't worry, we'll have peace now and get those back later". Also Lenin, considering that he was imported from Germany, and that he ceded territorries to Germany, kinda sounds a tad wrong, doesn't it?

So here you are claiming that Soviet RUSSIA is not a successor of the RUSSIAN Empire, and of course RUSSIANS aren't citizens of RUSSIA by that logic, they just sound alike I guess, right? In addition, Lenin was imported from Germany, he gave the land to Germany, see the connection? Of course not, you don't even get the RUSSIA-RUSSIAN connection.

2. Also, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed on itself. If you would've read history, you'd see that several Czeckoslovakian divisions switched sides, actually giving a boost to the Russians. I give Russian Military Credit where it's due, and in this case, it's not due.

***EDITED***
Okay, now I understand: Southerners were a different ethnicity belonging to a different family of peoples (BTW Ests aren't even Indo-Europeans), and Baltics seceded because Russia wanted to free their slaves. This is sarcasm, but I hope you see what is my point. Besides, what you say means Abkhazians and Ossetians invaded Georgia, which means they had full rights to defend self.

So in order to declare independence from your country, I have to be of a different race then you are, right? Your argument sounds like this: "the Northerners and Southerners were one race, while the Ests and Slavs are different races, ergo the Ests had the right to secede and the Southerners didn't" - ummm, you do realize that just makes you a racist, right? Sarcastic racists are racists nonetheless. I was explaining that the South, using your logic, had just as much right to secede as Estonia. You brought in racial differences as a counter-point. Thus you are using race to make me look foolish; thing is - that makes you a racist. You cannot just secede on the basis of race alone, without being a racist.

Also, the Abkhazia and South Ossetia were autonomous Republics within Georgia. When Georgia took away their autonomous status, without consulting the duo, they seceded. That's perfectly legit. I don't recall the Baltic States having much autonomy. Finland and Poland certainly did, Baltic States - not really.



So, by the analogy above, Russia interfered in affairs of Georgia.

Duh! Except Russia interfered during a COUNTER-attack, whereas the Allies interfered without any military necessity reason to do so. It's different. If you punch me in the face for no reason, you go to jail. If you punch me in the face after I tries to punch you that's self-defense. See the difference?


As I said, Poland was struggling for independence. You probably know before the Partitionment its borders were as far as Kiev east.

I know that Rus, aka Russia took Kiev in 882AD, and I know that Lithuania took it from Russia after it was sacked by the Mongols, therefore Lithuania used the Mongol attack on Russia to take control of a Russian city. The city later passed to Poland, and was again retaken by Russia. Considering that Kiev was capital of Russia in 882 AD, and that the Poles didn't own it before that, I somehow don't see how you have a valid claim there.


You seem to not know that Russia and multiple medieval Ruthenian principalities aren't the same, and Lithuania is not Poland. Destruction of Kiev created a vacuum of power filled by Lithuania and Muscovy, who divided Rus lands between themselves. Lithuania then entered an union with Poland. Is this case an example of Evil A vs Noble B? No, rather politics of the era, I'd say. And, as we've both agreed, it's not Evil A vs Noble B, it's not poor Russia being bullied by bad bad Pollacks either.

As for digging in the past: Persia ganged up on Greece, what gives the Western civilisation the right to invade Iran. :P

I wasn't talking about Poland taking Kiev here. I was talking about Poland using the Time of Troubles to sneakily and underhandedly attempt, and ultimately fail to capture Moscow, the capital of Moscovy. Also, Moscovy was viewed as the heir of Rus, aka Russia. When an actual Russian Army showed up, led by General Pozharsky, the Poles got slaughtered. So one on one, Poles not very good. Pillaging Russian lands where no army existed, that the Poles excel at. Whining about Russians doing the same to Poland, also a point that the Poles excel at. And it's not digging in the past: end of Polish intervention in Russia - 1618. First Partition of Poland: 1772. Wars occuring at in between dates: Smolensk, 1634, Russo-Polish, 1667, Polish succession, 1735. You can see that it's not really ancient history, and that Poland ceased to exist, partly because Poland intervened in the Time of Troubles.



Besides, what you say reminds me of a certain Frederick of Prussia quote. When asked what is his justification for taking part in the Partitionment, he said (I'm not only quoting from memory, but also translating, so actual quote may be a little different) "I have historians, they are the ones to find such". Yekaterina of Russia didn't take over half of Commonwealth because more than one and a half century earlier Poles were in Moscow, but because she could.

Yes, because Frederick of Prussia read Catherine's mind, totally, right? Didn't he ask why Russia and Poland were going at it in the first place? Wasn't like Russia had to expand to that specific region either; Prussia had nowhere to really expand, Russia had room to expand, didn't run out of room to expand until well into the 19th century. And Russia could have taken those territorries as well.


Also, Lithuanians did not gang up with Mongols (and, say, Swedes) on Russia because it was weak and ripe for conquer. Instead, the Golden Horde destroyed the force which had the strongest claim to the land, the Kievan Rus. The Lithuanians took advantage of this and conquered a number of nearby principalities. The other expansion-minded player left in the area was Muscovy. Thus, two competitors stood up as possible uniters of Rus.

The Kievan Rus had their roots in Novgorod. Novgorodian Rus was not destroyed by the Mongols. Muscovy did not rise until Dmitri Donskoy took the throne. The battles occurred under Alexander Nevsky who came two generations ealier. Lithuanian never seeked to unify Rus. Learn history please, especially the generational gap.


As for Polish intervention in 1612&around: at first, at the court of one of Polish magnates appeared a man claiming to be a rightful heir of the late dynasty. An expedition was mounted to protect his (and by extention, Polish-Lithuanian) interests. In fact, it was initially greeted well by the boyars, they even offered the crown to the son of Polish king (I can only pity the dude and his Pa were too dogmatic on religion). Only after some time the relations between locals and intervents deteriorated.


So if I claim to be the rightful heir to England, and I get approved by the House of Lords, do I get to invade the UK? Also, the Boyars were themselves usurpers, and the Poles knew, or should have known that. The Poles didn't care, they saw a weak Russia and went for it.


See Leonstein. By the way: someone invades you. The war starts. What do you do - try to defeat the enemy, or hold the round hoping he'll get bored? Hint: chav lore does not necessarily apply to war and politics.

You try to defeat the enemy, duh! But if you're going up against several countries, you try to focus on the ones that are full of fight, now the ones that are near knockout. Even Foch, the German Planner of WWI told his staff to focus on France, nor Russia. Otto von Bismarck cautioned against invading Russia. The Germans easily repelled the Russian invasion. Had the Germans listened to Foch, they may have won WWI. That was the point I was making. Initially, you take out the country capable of doing the most damage, not one whose attacks you can easily repel - that's the one you save for dessert.


It ran out of armies so horribly it managed to amass some one or two hundred thousand of soldiers.

That's nothing for Russia/USSR. In the invasion of Manchuria, after WWII, the Red Army was able to field 1.5 million men within 30 days ready for combat. Also, in WWI, some statistics: http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_imperial_russian_army_of_1914 "With 14 million peasant drafts lead by an officer corps one percent of that size, the Russian army was short of every single thing except soldiers, bravery and enemies."

14 million to 200,000 - yeah I'd say that's a shortage of manpower, wouldn't you?


See Leonstein. Also: what was in the eyes of Stalin I can't say for sure. He may have as well prepared for invasion of Western Europe. However, revenge quite fits - Stalin had it personal with Poland (a gossip has it that it was personal since he was thrown out of Polish restaurant - surely another example of bullying the evil Poles done to Russians since the dawn of man; more actual would be to say the reason was his poor performance in 1920).

Why do you even mention the restaurant? Shits and giggles? His poor performance there actually makes sense. If you have a real argument, why use B/S arguments?



It probably was some earlier discussion that may have given such an impression, but I did not argue that Poland would defeat Russian invasion now. I wasn't even discussing modern times in my post.

Thanks for clearing that up.


But of course - they could have fought cold and diseases :P

Americans had a small force - easy to equip.


So, seems the Western powers wanted a) not let their goods be stolen; b) rescue the Czechs stranded in Russia after the collapse of Tsardom; c) fight Bolsheviks. In other words, they reluctantly tried to help their ally, Tsar Nicholas II, against the rebels led by German agent (yep - I'm talking 'bout Lenin here. Germans let him go to Russia, hoping he'll wreck enough havoc to kick Russia out of war. Seems he succeded, as he signed a truce with Germans ceding the claim to basically what lies west of modern Russian border).

A: You mean if you use goods in a war against Russians those will get stolen? Oh my, really? Of course they'll get stolen, even today: see American Jeeps.

B: How did the Czechs get stranded? were they vacationing at a resort, or invading Russia?

C: Wasn't only the Bolsheviks that wanted teh Tsar dead. He had a long list of enemies within Russia, due to his poor tenure. Take Bush, give him absolute power and several decades of rule, let Cheney be his advisor, you kinda get the ruling class that the Allies were trying to save, right? I've yet to hear a single Russian pity Nicolas the II; his kids, yeah-especially the girls. Him and his wife - not really. In the US some still pity Bush. Yes, Nicolas II was THAT BAD.

Russia knows that Obama is a chance to regain some standing in the world; let's face it, Obama's as soft as butter.

So what will you say if Obama catches Osama?

Russia knows that Obama is a chance to regain some standing in the world; let's face it, Obama's as soft as butter.

Lets face it. You dont really have anything to support this assertion, and are just talking out your ass.

1. Soviet RUSSIA not considered the successor of the RUSSIAN Empire? Are you serious? Also, Lenin cannot secede territories, only territories can secede. Lenin can only Cede territorries, but he didn't really do that either, telling Trotsky "don't worry, we'll have peace now and get those back later". Also Lenin, considering that he was imported from Germany, and that he ceded territorries to Germany, kinda sounds a tad wrong, doesn't it?

So here you are claiming that Soviet RUSSIA is not a successor of the RUSSIAN Empire, and of course RUSSIANS aren't citizens of RUSSIA by that logic, they just sound alike I guess, right? In addition, Lenin was imported from Germany, he gave the land to Germany, see the connection? Of course not, you don't even get the RUSSIA-RUSSIAN connection.

Name of state has no importance, there are plenty of good examples, like FINNISH Democratic Republic(Kuusinen and co during winter war).
Also what Lenin told to Trotsky is irrelevant, the fact is that those areas were ceded(thanks for correcting btw) with official treaty.

At that time Soviet Russia was for most of world bunch of illegal German agents trying to crab power in Russia. Republic of Estonia was actually first state in whole world to sign official peace agreement with it (as central powers had collapsed, and Brest-Litovsk had been annuled), some Russians, like Solzhenitsyn, have even strongly criticized that move.

Also, the Abkhazia and South Ossetia were autonomous Republics within Georgia. When Georgia took away their autonomous status, without consulting the duo, they seceded. That's perfectly legit. I don't recall the Baltic States having much autonomy. Finland and Poland certainly did, Baltic States - not really.

Oh, autonomy was fully there as Autonomous Governorate of Estonia, established officially by Kerensky government after February revolution. Official provisional parliament(Maapäev) officially created Salvation Committee which declared independence of the Republic of Estonia(by that time bolsheviks had made their coup). Kerensky goverment had been well recognized, and local Estonian authorities got their legitimacy directly from it.

2. Also, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed on itself. If you would've read history, you'd see that several Czeckoslovakian divisions switched sides, actually giving a boost to the Russians. I give Russian Military Credit where it's due, and in this case, it's not due.

Your reply adresses only very small part of my point which was why Germany advanced into Russia after Tannenberg. Germany advanced into Russia because Russia refused to make separate peace while bordering Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey and therefore tieing up very large central powers armies. Also Russia kept up active war making numerous attacks (latest being Kerensky Offensive in 1917), which hit Germany's allies very hard.

Btw, Czeckoslovakian divisions did not carry Galicia in their pockets over Russian lines. Russian armies directly marched into that area.

You try to defeat the enemy, duh! But if you're going up against several countries, you try to focus on the ones that are full of fight, now the ones that are near knockout. Even Foch, the German Planner of WWI told his staff to focus on France, nor Russia. Otto von Bismarck cautioned against invading Russia. The Germans easily repelled the Russian invasion. Had the Germans listened to Foch, they may have won WWI. That was the point I was making. Initially, you take out the country capable of doing the most damage, not one whose attacks you can easily repel - that's the one you save for dessert.

Foch was French commander, so I assume you mean Sclieffen, author of plan to defeat France with single massive assault before Russia mobilizes. That plan totally failed in Marne 1914, partially because it underestamated all opponents(French, British, Belgians, Russians). Then you are waging two front was against different major powers, you try to knock out weaker first, so that you could latter concentrate all efforts against stronger.

Germans believed in 1914 that France can be defeated faster then Russia, that belief didnt dissappear even latter for some time (Falkehayn's attrition at Verdun). As history has shown, that assumption was wrong and may have easily been major reason for central powers defeat, as war on eastern front lasted far longer then it may have lasted if Russia had been hit with all avaible forces from beginning.

How did the Czechs get stranded? were they vacationing at a resort, or invading Russia?

You really dont know that? Czechs were former Austrian prisoners of war that had been formed into Czechoslovak Legions to fight on Entente side in WW I. After bolsheviks made separate peace it was agreed to give Czech legions free passage out from Russia through Vladivostok, that promise was broken under German pressure, resulting legion getting into fight in Siberia.

1. Soviet RUSSIA not considered the successor of the RUSSIAN Empire? Are you serious?

When there's a civil war, and you are diplomatic with ancien regime, you wait with endorsing the new government until the situation is clear.

Lenin can only Cede territorries, but he didn't really do that either, telling Trotsky "don't worry, we'll have peace now and get those back later". Also Lenin, considering that he was imported from Germany, and that he ceded territorries to Germany, kinda sounds a tad wrong, doesn't it?

See Olmedreca, but I can also say a word or two.

Sounds quite appropriate thing to do for an agent, though I do not think that the way in which Lenin returned to Russia had much impact on Brest-Litovsk treaty. And since he was telling Trotsky some things, it means he was either cheering him up or cheating on the Germans. While I can't say for sure about the former, the latter is correct. By the way, he cheated this way on basically anyone, only some managed to stave him off for a while.


So in order to declare independence from your country, I have to be of a different race then you are, right? Your argument sounds like this: "the Northerners and Southerners were one race, while the Ests and Slavs are different races, ergo the Ests had the right to secede and the Southerners didn't" - ummm, you do realize that just makes you a racist, right? Sarcastic racists are racists nonetheless. I was explaining that the South, using your logic, had just as much right to secede as Estonia. You brought in racial differences as a counter-point. Thus you are using race to make me look foolish; thing is - that makes you a racist. You cannot just secede on the basis of race alone, without being a racist.

I could explain myself. But not, I will use your logic instead. Maybe there will be better times for reasoning.
*clears throat*
You racist bastard, you accuse me of racism?! You support enslavement of Blacks!

[QUOTE]Also, the Abkhazia and South Ossetia were autonomous Republics within Georgia. When Georgia took away their autonomous status, without consulting the duo, they seceded. That's perfectly legit. I don't recall the Baltic States having much autonomy. Finland and Poland certainly did, Baltic States - not really.

See Olmedreca. Plus, better times.

Duh! Except Russia interfered during a COUNTER-attack, whereas the Allies interfered without any military necessity reason to do so. It's different. If you punch me in the face for no reason, you go to jail. If you punch me in the face after I tries to punch you that's self-defense. See the difference?

Well, a civil war led by some extremists bent on smashing the foundations of the world erupting in the country of your ally is sorta reason for intervention.

I know that Rus, aka Russia took Kiev in 882AD, and I know that Lithuania took it from Russia after it was sacked by the Mongols, therefore Lithuania used the Mongol attack on Russia to take control of a Russian city. The city later passed to Poland, and was again retaken by Russia. Considering that Kiev was capital of Russia in 882 AD, and that the Poles didn't own it before that, I somehow don't see how you have a valid claim there.

Kiev was never a capital of Russia. It was capital of Kievan Rus. "Russia", in modern meaning, is only as old as Ivan III or IV and the claim of successorship of Byzantium.
In 1547, Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) was officially crowned the first Tsar of Russia.

I was talking about Poland using the Time of Troubles to sneakily and underhandedly attempt, and ultimately fail to capture Moscow, the capital of Moscovy. Also, Moscovy was viewed as the heir of Rus, aka Russia.

When an actual Russian Army showed up, led by General Pozharsky, the Poles got slaughtered. So one on one, Poles not very good. Pillaging Russian lands where no army existed, that the Poles excel at. Whining about Russians doing the same to Poland, also a point that the Poles excel at.

Seems you have it personal, too. If you wish so, I can discuss, but I think I'll just suppose I did not see you falling into this pit of flamebait ridiculosity.

And it's not digging in the past: end of Polish intervention in Russia - 1618. First Partition of Poland: 1772. Wars occuring at in between dates: Smolensk, 1634, Russo-Polish, 1667, Polish succession, 1735. You can see that it's not really ancient history, and that Poland ceased to exist, partly because Poland intervened in the Time of Troubles.
[...]
Yes, because Frederick of Prussia read Catherine's mind, totally, right? Didn't he ask why Russia and Poland were going at it in the first place? Wasn't like Russia had to expand to that specific region either; Prussia had nowhere to really expand, Russia had room to expand, didn't run out of room to expand until well into the 19th century. And Russia could have taken those territorries as well.

So you really believe that Partitionment happened because of the intervention. I could discuss if you argued that the intervention set events in motion, but not if your view is that the Partitionment happened as some kind of revenge.

The Kievan Rus had their roots in Novgorod. Novgorodian Rus was not destroyed by the Mongols.[QUOTE]

Yet not Novgorod is called "Mother of Russian Cities" (or however it goes in English).

Muscovy did not rise until Dmitri Donskoy took the throne. The battles occurred under Alexander Nevsky who came two generations ealier.

So what?

Lithuanian never seeked to unify Rus.

It depends whether "unify" is "bring back relatively united political entity of Russia/Rus-like character" or "collect into a relatively united state".

Learn history please, especially the generational gap.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png

So much for generational gap.

So if I claim to be the rightful heir to England, and I get approved by the House of Lords, do I get to invade the UK?

You have a reason to do so, and being approved you can consider yourself having the right to the throne.

You try to defeat the enemy, duh! But if you're going up against several countries, you try to focus on the ones that are full of fight, now the ones that are near knockout. Even Foch, the German Planner of WWI told his staff to focus on France, nor Russia. Otto von Bismarck cautioned against invading Russia. The Germans easily repelled the Russian invasion. Had the Germans listened to Foch, they may have won WWI. That was the point I was making. Initially, you take out the country capable of doing the most damage, not one whose attacks you can easily repel - that's the one you save for dessert.

So you admit it was the result of poor planning. It is good, since your earlier posts created the notion thatin your eyes it was malevolence and "everyone gangs up on Russia".

That's nothing for Russia/USSR. In the invasion of Manchuria, after WWII, the Red Army was able to field 1.5 million men within 30 days ready for combat. Also, in WWI, some statistics: http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/...n_army_of_1914 "With 14 million peasant drafts lead by an officer corps one percent of that size, the Russian army was short of every single thing except soldiers, bravery and enemies."

14 million to 200,000 - yeah I'd say that's a shortage of manpower, wouldn't you?

More exact numbers:

From ~50,000 in early 1919 to almost 800,000 in summer 1920

Are you saying that Russian populace in 1920 was at the same level as in 1914?

Why do you even mention the restaurant? Shits and giggles?

Yep. "Fun fact".

If you have a real argument, why use B/S arguments?

And who's asking.

Americans had a small force - easy to equip.

You've probably noticed the two dots pee, but even despite this being said half-jokingly I can argue they didn't see much real fighting. Ah, you yourself posted quotes of than unwilling-to-fight General.

A: You mean if you use goods in a war against Russians those will get stolen? Oh my, really? Of course they'll get stolen, even today: see American Jeeps.

A. If you ship valuable goods to someone, you don't want them stolen by rabid neighbour.
B. Would you mind if I asked where did I accuse Russians of cleptomania?

B: How did the Czechs get stranded? were they vacationing at a resort, or invading Russia?

Olmedreca.

C: Wasn't only the Bolsheviks that wanted teh Tsar dead. He had a long list of enemies within Russia, due to his poor tenure. Take Bush, give him absolute power and several decades of rule, let Cheney be his advisor, you kinda get the ruling class that the Allies were trying to save, right? I've yet to hear a single Russian pity Nicolas the II; his kids, yeah-especially the girls. Him and his wife - not really. In the US some still pity Bush. Yes, Nicolas II was THAT BAD.

Okay, my bad with that Nicholas. Still, the October Revolution happened more than half a year after he was overthrown. Ah, as for 'single Russian pity": isn't there a movement to make him saint of Russian Orthodox Church?

*********

You seem to lose your temper. It is bad for your reliability, you know.