... or what will happen again?

or well be forced to realized there is not a damned thing we can do about it.

And drop the imperial attitude.

Though our political/corporate masters do LOVE the power, so unlikely.

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

China is far far more dangerous than Russia is. However, in order to pay respects to Nixon's ghost and Kissinger's barely breathing body, we play nice with the Chinese while being ridiculously mean to Russia.

I used to think it was because of communism, or so-called communism. But the US was anti-Russian before the 1917 revolution, and the US is still anti-Russian now that "communism" is dead there. It's something about Russia or Russians. Maybe it's the Caspian Basin energy and strategic materials resources, which were of interest even before WWI. Maybe it's borscht-breath. I dunno.

for political purposes and vendetta by British, French and German immigrants when came around the turn of the century. Leaders like Stalin didn't help in reinforcing the demonization either.

American population has a tendency to have a concretized general consensus after adequate demonization. How many Americas would believe that Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now?

the borders were closed to them almost entirely in 1924....

If you weren't a white Protestant, you could forget it. The Yankees and the South didn't want you polluting the gene pool or the politics.

Irish immigrants suffered discrimination even earlier. "No Irish Need Apply" was a familiar sign in NYC in the 1800s. But there was never the same opposition to Ireland as a nation as there is against Russia.

The years of 1917-1921 is one of the roughest five year period in history. You had unrest not only in Russia, but England, France and Germany (Germany actually agreed to an Armistice as a REPUBLIC in 1918, after overthrowing the Kaiser). Hitler's regiment (including Hitler) helped put a Communist government in charge of Bavaria in 1919 (Hitler and his regiment was subsequently imprisoned when that Government was suppressed and it was during his imprisonment as a soldier of that regiment that his ability to speak was first noted, and then used to convert other soldiers to withdraw they support for the Communists).

You had a Naval Mutiny in Germany in 1917 and 1918. You had French Army units on Strike in 1918 (No one trusted the French Infantry in 1918 except on the defensive, thus US troops were used to spearhead various attacks). You had strikes in France and England. Mussolini started his movement to take over Italy (and did so in 1922). You had communist revolutions in Hungary and other Eastern European countries (all suppressed in 1920-1921 except for Russia). Worse, these communist revolutionaries can continued to keep in contact with each other, even as they countries were fighting WWI, and thus were in the best position in 1918 to help each other.

In the US you had the massive Steel Strike of 1919 and its suppression and the West Virginia Coal War of 1921 (and other unrest). Thus everyone was afraid of outside agitators, mostly from the working class. Thus the push to end immigration was driven by the growing threat of a communist revolt. That such a revolt did not have popular support NOT even the 5% support of hard line agitators that Lenin said was needed did not matter to the ruling elite of the US, something had to be done to stop these agitators from coming from Eastern and Southern Europe (England and France had NOT been sending that many immigrants to the US since about the 1870, the Germans were isolated thus the biggest movement of people was in Southern and Eastern Europe to England, France and Germany as while as the US.

Remember the immigration quotas of the 1920s, did permit some immigration, but gave larger numbers to those countries that had NOT been sending immigrants to the US over the previous 40 years. The reason for the larger number was these were larger states AND Russia being communist was the big fear (Followed by Italy and Germany, both under strong Communist leanings in 1917-1921 period).

Racism was a factor, but when you look at the time period a minor factor. It was the level of Communist revolts in Europe, mostly Eastern and Southern Europe that the Ruling elite wanted to keep out.

The US smuggled supplies into Sevastopol during the British/French/Turkish attack on that city in 1854 (Later US Civil War Generals, George McClellan and J.E.B. Stuart watched the charge of the Light Brigade from Russian Lines, McClellan is believed to have designed his famous saddle, still in us today, after Cossack Saddles he saw in use among Russian Cossack).

During the US Civil War The Russian Fleet said to the US, to show the US had friends, and thus Britain and France if they wanted to intervene will have to consider what the Russians will do.

After the Japanese defeat of the Russian Fleet in 1905, the surviving Russian ships sailed to then American controlled Manila. Theodore Roosevelt's negotiations that ended the Russo-Japanese War was more an effort by the US to bail out the Russians then anything else (And US ships were the main source of the coal used by the Russian ships as they sailed from St Petersburg to Japan to confront the Japanese fleet).

The US supplied weapons to the Czar during WWI.

In many ways, what happened in 1917 was more of a nasty divorce then a product of a continuing feud. It is like the British-Spanish break up of the 1500s, prior to Elizabeth I, Spain was British closest ally, both feared France. Worse, London, while NOT technically part of the Hanastic league, that controlled the trade routes of the Baltic, London was that leagues connection with Spain and trade with the Mediterranean (and with Turkey).

The English-Spanish Alliance was so strong, that when the Pope "Divided" the world between Spain and Portugal after Columbus had discover the New World, The Spanish clearly stated that the areas discovered by John Cabot in 1497 was English not Spanish.

Thus the main alliance of the Middle Ages was the Russia-Hananstic League, London and Spain (all with close relations with the Vatican and the Ottoman Empire as while as the Burgundy region of France). This opposed the French-Northern Italy-Venice-Constantinople-Christians in Lebanon and the Holy Roman Emperor "alliance". This stable alliance system started to break down during the reign of Timberlane (c1400), accelerated with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Turks, The French invasion if Italy in the late 1400s, followed by the Spanish and Turks coming to blows as both moved into North Africa. The Pope allied with the Holy Roman Emperor, once a Czech was elected as Emperor (Who switched trade routes from the sea to overland with widespread adoption of "Team" of horses replacing the early method of having horses haul wagons in tandem, i.e. switch from one horse in front of another to horses pulling a wagon side by side). Burgundy was divided by the King of France and the Habsburg of Austria in 1477.

Please understand, I am using the term "alliance" is the sense that they would help each other due to mutual fears and trade, not anything put on paper. Both sides understood this situation and acted accordingly. Thus you had English Troops helping the Teutonic Knights in the 1300s putting down the native Prussians. You had a Czech knight fighting for France in the battle of

Thus by the time of Elizabeth I (c1560) the old alliance system was dying. The Protestant Reformation appears to be the last knife into that system, for it clearly separated Northern Germany and the Baltic from both the Emperor and the Pope. Spain tried all it could to keep up the alliance, even marrying into the British royal family (Thus Henry VIII went to war with France in support of this brother in law, the king of Spain). Henry VIII married his daughter, Mary, to another King of Spain (Philip) who came to England to sit beside Mary as she ruled England. After her death, Philip proposed to Elizabeth, again more to keep up the traditional alliance then anything else. The Amanda was more an attempt to force Elizabeth back into its alliance with Spain then to conquer England (Please note by 1700s Spain and England were working hand in hand once again as the old alliance was slowly revived, delayed by Bourbon becoming the Kings of Spain, but extremely strong after the Napoleonic wars, through Britain did oppose Spanish reconquering New Spain and South America, but the wars for Independence was more internal civil wars with few troops coming from Spain in the post Napoleonic period).

I bring up the Amanda for it is the closest historical situation to the US and Russia. Spain and England were the center of an alliance that lasted for hundreds of years, but when it broke up it was like a messy divorce, both sides blamed the other and were nasty to each other. The same with the US and Russia, in the period 1917-1923 you had massive revolts all through Europe and America. The Steel Strike of 1919 was nasty, and it was followed by the even nastier West Virginia Coal war of 1921 (The Coal War peaked in the Battle of Blair Mountain, and largest concentration of armed men in open combat since the Civil War, at least 20,000 men participated in the fighting).

Thus, when Russia went Communist and stayed Communists the US hated it. Russia had just defected to the arch enemy of the America elites, Communists. The US had had a difficult time putting down it own revolts (none came close to taking power, but it did put the fear of God into the Elites), but there was Russia, the US long term Ally, the one country believed capable of suppressing any revolts anywhere, going Communist. Like Spain staying Catholic while England embraced Protestantism (and England abandoning Catholicism) this was an attack on the center of belief of the ruling elite, and as such must be destroyed.

That Communism must be destroyed has been the core belief of the American Ruling Elite since 1917 is beyond question. That Ruling elite also believes that and anyone who EVER embraced it or even tolerated Communism, can not be trusted is another dogma of theirs. Thus Russia can NOT be trusted for it was once Communist and until you get people in charge who NEVER lived under Communism, Russia can NEVER be trusted.

The same rule applies to China, through many of the Ruling Elite view the Communists of China as NOT true Communists. The reasons for this is many, but starts with the Nature of the 1949 revolution. The 1949 Communist take over of China was more a traditional Chinese Peasant revolt then an Urban proletariat revolt, as had been the case in Russia in 1917. In 1917 mostly Rural Russia had left its urban working class take over the cities and then rally around those urban core to defeat the whites that opposed the Reds. Thus the Russian Revolution is the nearest thing to a true Marxist revolution in history.

On the other hand, the urban working class of China had been destroyed in the 1920s and Mao Tse Tung had reverted to using a traditional Peasant revolt to take over China (Much like the Ming dynasty did in the 1300s). Thus the 1949 Communist take over of China was NOT a Marxist revolt (even Stalin seems to have understood that). I have question as to Mao's understanding of the nature of his take over of China, but he knew it was a take over. Thus the US ignored China for over 20 years, hoping it would go away. Then Red China was saw as something to oppose the Soviet Union, and that they were communists was ignored. Thus you have almost 60 years of American Elites saying China is NOT communist (ignored till 1972, anti-Soviet after 1972 and thus could "NOT" be communist even if they claimed that they were).

China also never had to long term understanding the US and Russia had prior to 1917. In many ways China going Communist if like England, France or Germany going Communist, bad, but no close relationship destroyed by them going Communist. On the other hand Russia was a close "Friend" of the US and had been since the time of President Jackson till 1917 and the subsequent divorce was less then civil. Thus the US still hates Russia, for with Russia the US could rule the world and the US ruling elite knows it.

This went on approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, when the US joined the UK in a rapprochement toward Russia, which lasted until the Bolshevik revolution.

I am being sarcastic. I always like the Errol Flynn Movie the "Charge of the Light Brigade", which shows that charge, made in 1854, was done to revenge a massacre during the Great mutiny (which is NOT mentioned in the Movie) in India in 1858 (Yes, in the movie, the charge was to revenge a massacre that occurred four years AFTER the charge). Made in the late 1930s, the Movie could NOT show the Russians in good light and thus the charge had to be something more then a military blunder, but that is the danger when you get your history from movies and what is popular.

On the other hand, the facts do support a CLOSE relationship between the US and Russia during that time period:

The US supported (through the US did go through the motions of trying to stop them) various Irish plots after the US Civil War to take over Canada and exchange it for an independent Ireland.

You also ignore the main reason Russia sold Alaska to the US, it was do to the fact both countries believed it was easier for the US to defend Alaska then Russia. Thus it was more a transfer between allies as to what area each could defend against a common enemy, i.e. England, then anything else.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/alaska-purchase

I would NOT bring up 1813, remember the US went to war with England in 1812, technically over the rights of sailors, but given every Western Representative voted for the war, and New England voted against it (and most US Sailors were from New England at that time period). the real reason was British Support for native Americans under Tecumseh.

I do NOT know where you get the impression that the US supported Britain over Russia between 1813-1907, if that was the case why did the RUSSIAN FLEET VISIT THE US IN 1862? Why did the US permit a Canadian Rebel group keep a ship in US Water and why did the British risked war to sink it?

Fenians raids into Canada:

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

The "Carolina Affair" of 1837 almost lead to full scale invasion of Canada:

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

The "Pork and Beans War" of 1838-1840:

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

It is a product of the post WWII myth that the US and Britain had always been "Friends" except for the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The problem is that is simply NOT True for the period after the war of 1812 till after 1900. The US had no interests in India (and what Kipling called the "Great Game&quot for the US saw India as British possession and best the US could do about it is support Russian aims on India via Afghanistan and Persia. Given most trade with India was controlled by the British the US did not have much interest in that trade for it was up to the British who could trade in India and we had to obey they imposed on us, whether we liked it or not.

More on the Russian Fleet visit to the US in 1863 and its affect on the British and French:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1935-05/visit-russian-squadrons-1863

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/delehaye.htm

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html

http://feefhs.org/members/blitz/1863-1864.html

British Cartoon on the Relations between the US and Russia in the 1860s:



US British relations reached a new low in 1895. The US almost went to war with Britain in 1895 over Venezuela oil reserves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_Crisis_of_1895

The US Supported the Boars during the Boar war of 1900.

A book about US- Russian Relation prior to WWI that tries to make the case that US-Russian relations did not go bad in 1917 when Lenin took over Russia but in the 1890s when the Czar ended his reforms efforts. The Writer does point out that prior to 1900 the US and Russian relationship was extremely tight, and that the break up was slow after 1900, but completed in 1917 when Lenin became the leader of Russia.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/saucon.html

Sorry, pre-1900 US Russian relations were tight, the Russo-Japanese War actually made them tighter (the above author says it did the opposite, but that means ignoring how Japan felt about the New Hampshire treaty, which they felt was forced down their throats, the Japanese thought they should get more then they did. This relationship was NEVER a formal alliance, but worse an understanding that the US and Russia would help each other if the other would get into conflict with Britain. Going to war was NOT expected, but other actions that would tie up British resources were done, such as the US smuggling goods to Sevastopol through the Turkish Straits during the Crimea war of 1854, and the Russia Fleet visiting the US in 1863. An Understanding between two nations is sometimes more powerful and useful then an alliance, and with Russia and the US from the 1830s till 1917 that was the case.

Instead of criticizing the 'Crimea annexation model', we should be embracing it by annexing Alberta and perhaps Nova Scotia for ourselves.

We don't need those crazy Canadians. I mean think of what they'll demand: free health care, policemen on horseback that yell "halt", and always using "Eh" at the end of every sentence. It wouldn't be worth it.

We already have a missile base in NH.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19610406&id=tKIrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kfwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4198,3246256

What right does the US have to tell China what to do in Asia? None whatever.

never forget Beijing's Tiananmen Square. On June 4, 1989, hundreds or thousands of people were killed when the Chinese army crushed a prodemocracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square, Beijing

How many Indians did we murder? How many slaves were killed? Kent State.

Let them continue their thousand year history of crushing people and taking territory- without a word?

didn't kill anyone?

preferably without cable or internet. For his sanity's sake. And ours.

If China were to be shown to have attacked any of these countries, we would have a lot of explaining to do if we did not help them defend themselves.

We have no such treaty with Ukraine.

The President's tilt toward Asia seems in part to be an effort to keep conflicts in East Asia from escalating into a war or wars that would pull us in due to our treaty obligations.

That is the green light that Russia and China are going off. If we can go into Iraq on trumped up charges for resources, why can't they?

It will take a while to get that moral high ground back.

Or what?

They invade Taiwan and we ain't going to do shit.

They invade Taiwan and we're putting them on double secret probation.

Something HAS to be done for the people

Not to create a NATO in Asia. Or illegally invade countries. Or impose neoliberalism.

Happy?