There's war coming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding is that Uncle Joe was an affectionate term. FDR and others certainly spoke well of their murderous ally.

No, my grandfather only saw what the Russians and Germans did in areas West of Berlin. But, based on what he saw he concluded the Russians were particularly brutal.

No, but our allies England and France which made war on Germany for this reason. The US didn’t need to go to Europe to make war. That was a choice. And the choice was to support and defend communism.
 
I prefer the simplistic way of looking at things. The complex way seems to be how perpetual war is justified. The US as a powerful and yet distant nation had no need to sail across the sea to make war. And its opponents had no chance of sailing to us and making serious war.

I don’t doubt some Germans did horrible things. But for me the most trustworthy evidence is what my grandfather saw. I understand the same would be true for you. But I also have more doubts about the goodness of the Russians when they did things like the Katyn massacre and tried to blame it on the Germans.
 
We really didn’t despise each other until the Bolshevik Revolution. The Czar Government was generally amicable. So was Catherine the Great.
 
Can knowledge - and everything that depends on it - survive the internet?
 
😒 To satiate your bellyaching, I’m referring to the period between 1721-1917. Ending with Emperor Nicholas II (some add Czar/Tsar) The USA had no issues with Russia during this time until the abominable Bolshevik Revolution and slaughter of the country’s legitimate rulers. What Russia experienced was no better than the French Revolution. It all ended the same: Blood, Death, Destruction, and Chaos.
 
The American Revolution lasted from April 19, 1775–September 3, 1783

The French Revolution lasted from Jul 14, 1789–Nov 9, 1799.

The Bolshevik Revolution lasted from Mar 8, 1917–Nov 7, 1917.

The Chinese Communist Revolution lasted from 1945–1950.

The American Revolution lasted 7 years! It was arguably the most successful. Granted, it required French aid. Nevertheless, time and money worked against Britain and they withdrew. Well, until 1812…

The Bolshevik and French Revolutions were, in comparison, both quite short and indescribably violent. It’s also debated that there were outside interests bankrolling both revolutions. Regardless, the revolutions severely injured both countries.

The Chinese Communist Revolution lasted just short of the American and was unusually successful. Chiang Kai-shek should’ve won; however, fighting the Japanese and Maoists essentially destroyed the country. The US being rather sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party withheld support to the Nationalists and the rest was history.

As I see it , overthrowing any legitimate government should be carefully considered. God only knows who’s interests you could be playing into! Applying Just War Theory could help.
 
Ignorance is readily curable, even if indifference is difficult makes it harder. But rooting out misinformation. That prospect is the one I find very depressing.
 
The Americans didn’t gun down King George and his children in a basement. They presented a legal argument based on their traditional rights as English citizens and then after the war, they gave back much of the property that had been stolen from Loyalists.

Anyway, it’s a moot point. What’s done is done. I doubt anything or anyone could have stopped revolution from eventually coming to Russia, and given the peculiar traits unique to that ancient and unfathomable people, it was always going to be a bloody affair. Anyone who could possibly answer for those crimes is long dead. May God have mercy on their souls.

What isn’t a moot point is that Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a slew of other nations are on collision courses with America and her interests and there is no earthly power that can avoid some kind of confrontation from taking place. The best we can hope for, barring divine intervention, is that it stays localized and the two great powers continue using proxies.
 
Last edited:
While I think the Western Allies found the collapse of Czarist Russia frightening, and certainly in Britain there were fears of some sort of worker uprising (which is why the Romanovs were not granted asylum despite Lenin’s desire to boot them out of the country), I don’t recall reading of any great hostility per se to the Soviet Union at the time. The “Red Scare” was by and large a post Second World War phenomenon.
 
I’m sure they had sympathizers in the Western world, especially in countries like America with her natural distrust for monarchs, and probably in other nations where the Czars were (somewhat justifiably) seen as particularly bad monarchs.

After WW2 America was ascendant, the eternal German and Japanese threats were crushed, and global Communism had suddenly become a very real threat. I hate the term ‘Red Scare’ because it implies there were no legitimate reasons for the Western World to be frightened of the Soviet Union. History has proven that they had infiltrated many governments, they were pursuing a policy of global destabilization and eventual dominance, and they were an existential threat to the rest of the world. From a moral perspective, they were (by far) the worst players in a bad world; and from a utilitarian perspective they were a global powerhouse with interests were exclusive to our own.

Communism was a global threat, and the sins of the men who fought against it in no way mitigates the danger Communism represented.
 
exnihilo said:
It is curious us siding with communism, or not really when you see what is going on.
Click to expand...
WWII started in Germany as a fight between two great Evils, Socialism/Communism and fascism. Hitler only came to power as a result of the strife between those two. The “original” anti-fascists were as communist as today’s idiotic kid’s in the streets.

We only “sided” with communism because of a mutual enemy.

And your right, Marxism has mostly won. Look at our universities today and imagine what tomorrow will bring.
 
Weren’t the King of England and the Czar of Russia closely related? I had thought the King of England denied the Czar asylum in Britain. I might be wrong.
At some point, the British royalty changed their last name to Windsor so it would not
sound so German.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Weren’t the King of England and the Czar of Russia closely related? I had thought the King of England denied the Czar asylum in Britain. I might be wrong.
At some point, the British royalty changed their last name to Windsor so it would not
sound so German.
Click to expand...
George V and Nicholas II were first cousins, and actually looked almost like twins. When Nicholas II was deposed, Lenin made overtures to George V for Britain to take in the Czar and his family, but the Government was deeply concerned that the presence of the Romanovs could lead to uprisings among workers in Britain, and George V thus was forced to decline any offer of asylum. Remember that Britain was still at war, and could ill afford any troubles at home.

In retrospect, after the Bolsheviks murdered the Romanovs, I suspect many regretted the decision.
 
Not really. Remember, America didn’t take Alaska from Russia. We bought it from them. Willing buyer, willing seller. Not the sort of thing inveterate enemies do. And too, America was asked by both sides to mediate the end of the Russo/Japanese War. And America certainly did make an effort to relieve the Bolshevik-created famine in Russia, only to have it frustrated by non-cooperation on the part of the regime.

Sure, Americans had a distaste for Tsarist oppression of the subject peoples of the Russian empire. But so did the subject peoples. But it wasn’t all that big a deal to Americans.

It was really the Bolshevik era, and rightly so, that really repelled Americans. After the end of the Soviet regime, there was no anti-Russian sentiment until the regime started a new imperialist drive in places like Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Russia needs to get out of those places, and immediately, if it expects to be well-regarded by Americans.

But one very much doubts the average Russian cares a whole lot about what Americans think. Imperialist ventures can have an intoxicating effect on a populace unless it generates too many body bags.

Among some Americans, at least, the fact that there were never “Nuremberg-style” trials in Russia after the Soviet regime lost power, and the further fact that Russia now seems to be simply a more subtle “KGB state” than before, is off-putting.
 
Last edited:
One could say that for some of the participants, but not all. Royalists aside (and there were no few of them) there were, in effect, “independent nations” already in the U.S. when the revolution happened.

And there were secessionist movements in the U.S. almost from the beginning, particularly in the northeast, which had economic issues with the Deep South, but perhaps even more with the “trans Appalachian” people who were effectively independent of everyone, even before the American Revolution and were essentially “stateless” even before they came to this country, having no allegiance to anyone but themselves.
 
DaveBj said:
40.png
7_Sorrows:
At some point, the British royalty changed their last name to Windsor so it would not sound so German.
Click to expand...
Actually it was from Battenberg to Mountbatten.

D
Click to expand...
Windsor for the monarchy.
 
If you’re talking about the change of the Royal Family’s name in WWI, it went from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to House of Windsor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top