[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