[SemanticStrengh]

American russophobia is a sad state of affair considering history, they also gave Alaska for a negligible price. > When the Civil War broke out, both England and France considered hostile intervention on behalf of the South and they tried to convince the Tsar to join them. Alexander II’s refusal was critically important because the British and French then decided to abort their plans. It's crazy to think Russia determined modern america fate

[threatofrain]

Putin ordered Russian forces to be on the highest level of nuclear readiness. We have programs on Russian state TV where people talk about using nuclear weapons to drown the UK and devastate the European coast with a nuclear tsunami. This is a scary time we live in.

The conversation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine may now be centered on NATO, but it began with statements of routine training exercises at the border and escalated to the de-Nazification of Ukraine. Russia has not done well to reach the hearts of its neighbors.

That we have to reach past the Cold War into the American Civil War to discuss amicable relations does not bode well.

[avgcorrection]

If Russophobia is a widespread phenomenon then it started way before 2022.

[watwut]

When Russia bombed Syrian hospitals ... invaded Chehenia and other countries ... had assasins murder people living EU, likely caused explosion in Czechs (2014), likely shut down plane, supported dictators around the world ...

Common, Ukrainian invasion did not happened out of blue. And I don't even mention Russia actively trying to influence politics of ther countries to the worst.

[avgcorrection]

Let’s put it like this: being critical of the American government does not force you to be Americophobic.

> invaded Chehenia

Invaded their own territory.

[watwut]

Nah. It was not theirs. It was invasion twice.

Just because you was stole something does not mean you can steal it again and again every time owners get it back.

[avgcorrection]

Are the states of the US, Canada, and Australia (to name a few) on stolen land?

[SemanticStrengh]

how do you deal with the insane double standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... I'm not advocating against russophobia per se, but americanophobia seems similarly legitimate

[threatofrain]

A very general western hatred (not merely US!) has been brewing over Russian social media for awhile now, and the conversation of whether to deny Russians their prerogative to hate the west is not really there. There isn't even much conversation on western media as to what the state of Russian social media is even like.

[watwut]

That 1972 picture somehow implies none of Russian escalation of aggression between late 1990 and 2022 happened?

Should we go into how many countries Russia occupied at that point and how oppressive and murderous it was?

[edgyquant]

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

[sofixa]

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

[berdario]

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war...

I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained:

> The British government has handed us its draft, we have given our counterdraft, but it is still obvious that the British government is dragging its feet over the agreement because the reactionary war party is still hard at work there

So, I don't think it's fair to assume that it was only the UK who wanted normalized relations, and that the difficulties came from only one side.

> taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal

Which again, seems out of place, since I presume you're referring to events that followed the start of WW2.

Talking about WW2, Europe wasn't friendly to the USSR leading up to war:

The initial anti-comintern treaty in 1935 was extended to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and China (ruled by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek).

In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/322...

and of course, Churchill's Operation Unthinkable means that Britan had a deep, deep distrust of the USSR.

Despite all this, the USSR asked to join NATO in 1954, but again: it had been rebuffed, along its proposals of reunification and neutrality for Germany.

We often forget about all this, and only think of the reasons for why we distrusted the USSR, but we ignore all of the opportunities that we missed for a friendlier relationship.

[throwaway290]

There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war?

I also want to know more conditions under which Stalin (who really handled foreign policy then?) offered to send troops to Europe, considering USSR was sort of fighting Japan at the same time. I'm sure UK and France could corroborate and provide more details, if this offer was real.

For the record, the position* of Sotskov (the only source mentioned in the article you linked) is also that occupying Baltic states and dividing Europe between USSR and Germany was not in fact a land grab by USSR but rather a necessary measure to be able to resist Germany.

Never mind that this protection buffer would not have been needed if Germany did not expand its invasion... which it did thanks to USSR siding with it. Dubious twist of logic.

It seems obvious that leaving Germany to take more of Europe in the beginning of WWII would have drastically reduced the ability of USSR to withstand a subsequent attack by Germany, so the argument seems to be "our geniuses could foresee this, so they invaded Europe in order to save the world from fascists". This argument is canceled out, however, by considering that at the end of the day not entering a pact with the UK does not imply USSR needed to side with Germany, the act that enabled Germany to start the war (which presumably USSR was aware of) in the first place.

I'm not sure to which degree this treatment of WWII is truth vs. revisionism.

* Which also seems to be the official position of the Kremlin: http://www.svr.gov.ru/material/sbornik-dokumentov/otzyvy-na-...

[berdario]

> There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war?

This is not about "friendship pact", this is about non-aggression pact.

Was Poland not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declarat...

Was France not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Consequences

> Never mind that this protection buffer would not have been needed if Germany did not expand its invasion... which it did thanks to USSR siding with it. Dubious twist of logic.

Good questions/points, but we're judging decisions made at the time with the hindsight of decades after the war. I don't think it was clear to anyone who would've joined the war, which sides would've won, and the likelihood of such events.

Every country, depending on the circumstances, was probably trying to do what's best for them. Either avoiding war, or exploiting the messy situation by expanding their territory by annexing small part of neighboring states.

In fact, after seeing what happened to Poland, I think that every party in such agreements realized that they could provide, at best, temporary respite and delay confrontation (but that's not a weird isolated phenomenon: circumstances changes, and that provides ammunition to arguments that old agreements are not valid anymore).

It's not as much to enable other countries' war, but rather to delay one's own involvement in one war.

In fact, the USSR state budget was dedicated to defense for only about ~5%. A confrontation with Nazi Germany at the time would've been disastrous. But in the extra couple of years since, it increased to > 40%

https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-military-spending/

[throwaway290]

> Was Poland not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

Did they also devise secret protocols dividing the world into spheres of influence, which were subsequently expanded with clauses that had "friendship" in their titles?

> we're judging decisions made at the time with the hindsight of decades after the war

This is exactly what allows us to see objectively what was happening.

It's always easy to say "we didn't mean it, we were playing 3D chess" (like Trump apologists) right afterwards.

However, we can judge based on the actions, which were:

1) sign a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany

2) almost immediately after, jointly with Nazi Germany invade and divide a country

3) extend the pact with a further "friendship" treaty, dividing Europe*

4) further discuss joining Axis**

Where do you think things were really headed?

> I don't think it was clear to anyone who would've joined the war, which sides would've won, and the likelihood of such events.

> Every country, depending on the circumstances, was probably trying to do what's best for them

You're quick to rob all countries and their leaders of moral baselines. There was documented massive surprise (including Western communists) and outrage worldwide when USSR signed the pact. I think the pact at the time was somewhat of a blow to general morale, a sign that another major player takes the world as a zero-sum dog eat dog arena that you allude to.

It seems feasible Stalin/Molotov would've joined Axis if it's "better" for USSR. And furthermore what was going on in USSR under Stalin (ethical cleanses, mass murder) is not too different from what Hitler did, USSR and Nazi Germany are fairly similar in many regards.

But I don't think this is somehow just an instance of how every normal country disregards ethics in the name of own profit. For one, USSR was geopolitically differently situated compared to small countries within immediate vicinity of Germany. It had immense territory. It was actively forging agreements and trade with Germany at the time.

I'm happy USSR ultimately didn't get to win the initial war and divide the world alongside Axis.

> It's not as much to enable other countries' war, but rather to delay one's own involvement in one war.

USSR invaded Poland as soon as Germany did. You're right, this is not enabling other countries' war. This is actually joining the war, and not on the side of the good guys.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Boundary_and_Fri...

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Molot...

[philwelch]

> In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed

At which point he instead allied with Nazi Germany, aided in the invasion of Poland, personally ordered the mass execution of Polish POW's, and invaded Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

> Despite all this, the USSR asked to join NATO in 1954, but again: it had been rebuffed

By 1954, the USSR had already set up undemocratic communist puppet states in Eastern Europe, been caught engaging in espionage against the United States, attempted to blockade West Berlin in order to pressure the Western Allies into abandoning it to Soviet control, and committed genocide and war crimes on possibly the greatest scale seen in history.

[caublestone]

Russia and the US became very friendly during WW2 as well. Stalin and Roosevelt had a solid relationship while Stalin and Churchill did not. Churchill did not like Stalin for various reasons. But Roosevelt was the glue. Unfortunately, US elections at the time stipulated that the Vice President was chosen by the Democrat electorate and there was a coup to replace Roosevelts first pick (a guy friendly to the ussr) with a nobody from Missouri named Truman. Stalin never respected Truman and US relationships with the USSR deteriorated quickly after FDRS passing. Churchill and England became the dominant western voice in post ww2 trade and the iron curtain was eventually dropped.

Truman had so many financial struggles that the pension for presidents was created for him to live a dignified life after leaving office.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/fdrpoland.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_Party_vice_pre...

[rnk]

Truman's presidency doesn't seem so terrible from today's viewpoint, look at the work he did to help rebuild western europe after the war. Making note that he had not enriched himself while president does not serve to make you or your arguments better appreciated.

[watwut]

> Talking about WW2, Europe wasn't friendly to the USSR leading up to war: The initial anti-comintern treaty in 1935 was extended to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and China (ruled by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek).

Such a shocking action, after only little thing like The Great Purge and active hostile rhetorics from Russia ... and Holodomor.

This is ridiculous point of view that casts Russia as victim when other countries react to its aggression - whether aggression outside or inside. Russia 1935 and Germany 1936 were not that dissimilar, you know. Except Russia more bloody at that point.

[KerrAvon]

No, we don't forget about revisionist history. We view it with an appropriately skeptical eye.

The Telegraph article has a quote from a historian:

> "There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia:

> NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

[LAC-Tech]

You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia:

> NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

That is the stated purpose of NATO. The details of its real life military actions do not square with what you quoted at all - unless you can tell me which NATO member state Libya attacked.

[mlindner]

The Libyan conflict was several countries working together and stuck a NATO label on it. Most of NATO was not actually involved. It also included some countries outside of NATO, like Sweden.

You can blame it on France misusing the NATO moniker rather than it just being a coalition.

[SemanticStrengh]

> "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

Oh so it was a prank? - - What a weak thesis...

> You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia

You seem unfamiliar with the fact the USSR asked to join NATO it seems

[watwut]

And NATO rightfully said no, because of what kind of country Russia was.

Also, politicians, including and especially Russian politicians at the time having unserious claims is not weak thesis. That was their frequent negotiating/pressuring/rhetorical tactic.

[watwut]

It would be incredibly stupid to admit Russia of 1954 into NATO. The people taking power after Stalin were somewhat better, but still only slightly less murderous.

This is right after Russia organized processes and executions of class enemies. It demanded such processes of vasal states too. The monster processes were pretty large crime.

And this is btw, only like 14 years before Russia invaded other countries and started to occupie them in 1968.

[SemanticStrengh]

> In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed:

WOW thank you I never heard of this

[p_l]

Because it's not true - by 1939 discussions that led to Ribbentropp-Molotov were pretty advanced

[spywaregorilla]

You mean the country committing war crimes daily and threatening the world with nukes?

[pessimizer]

Yes, the russophobia of that country is a tragedy.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

There's a very brave, honorable politician, who unfortunately was lost in the annals of history, as a man directly responsible for Russian support during the civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Marcellus_Clay_(politi...

[SemanticStrengh]

thx for sharing. Is Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. related to him ? (also known as Muhammad Ali)

[IG_Semmelweiss]

No. However there is a relation.

Ali's grandfather specifically named his son after Cassius to honor Cassius, the KY politician. The son proceeded to do the same, with who would eventually be a famous boxer, M. Ali.

The boxer changed his name to Ali, both due to his conversion to islam , and because he was angry to take the name of a plantation owner.

The latter is true - Cassius was a plantation owner. However, early on he defender ardently emancipation. He in fact suffered multiple murder attempts from actual slavery advocates... who surrounded him in KY

[watwut]

Right now, Russophobia is kind of healthy thinking. Their current mix of tsarism and return to kinda communist thinking except the communist ideology is sucky and dangerous.

[avgcorrection]

Pick one:

- Russia is an authoritarian state lead by one man and his inner circle

- It is rational to hate Russians in general

[watwut]

Russia is an authoritarian state lead by one man and his inner circle. This man has very high public support. In particular, Russian population supports imperial ideology.

That is no contradiction. Authoritarians can have public support while at the same time severely oppressing opposition or anyone who dares to voice something else.

Also, opposition to Putin does not imply opposition to annexation of Ukrainian lands or turning Ukrainians into Russians by force. Opposition to Putin does not imply pro-democracy reform either.

> It is rational to hate Russians in general

Hate is a feeling. But accusations of Russophobia are all about support for sanctions or Ukraine in war. And are deployed whenever someone points out Russia as is now is threat to not just Ukraine, but to all countries in former eastern block.

All those are rational. So, if that matter average Russians look really down on Ukrainians too, are happy to use slurs against them and act offended it other formerly occupied countries are not "thankful".

----------

If anything, Russia was enabled rather then opposed for years. It was treated as something special, more worthy then other countries around it.

[avgcorrection]

Sure. It is not unreasonable to “hate” someone if they oppose you. I’ll give you that.

[watwut]

Russia is not "opposing" it is expanding and starting major wars. It is actively working to destroy other countries.

Russia is not opposing America as much as they are opposing right to existence as democracies to countries around them. It is way more countries around Russia calling for help to Ukraine then anyone else.

And yes, being at risk of being invaded by someone makes people hate that one. It makes them think again about what that country done to them before.

[avgcorrection]

> Russia is not "opposing" it is expanding and starting major wars. It is actively working to destroy other countries.

Brother. You are all over the place.

I was replying to this part:

> Russia is an authoritarian state lead by one man and his inner circle. This man has very high public support. In particular, Russian population supports imperial ideology.

To which I reply: Yes, it’s rational to “hate” someone if they oppose you. And “someone” here means normal Russians.

I was not talking about the Russian government in this context.

And I don’t know why you brought up America.

[gurumeditations]

“Russophobia” is a sham term invented by Russian propagandists to invalidate their opposition. It doesn’t exist.