babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
There were a number of people sent/encouraged to live in the far East. I believe there was a part of Russia allocated for a Zionist Jewish state, if I'm not mistaken.
And after the 20 some odd nation invasion from 1918 - 1922, there were always fears of another invasion from the East. A significant American contingent lead by a famous American general and Japanese force made its way into the heart of Russia along railway tracks from the East. They disappeared and were never heard from again. British, Canadian, German and French invaded from the west and South. White Russians rode into villages slaughtering willy nilly. Ukrainians, Czechs, and Poles made it as far as Moscow but surrendered or turned back. Millions of Russians were homeless, wandering the countryside starving and freezing to death.
[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Oh again, ruined keyboard!
do you have a book referencing this?
I don't. It was a history channel documentary. The general in question was, I think, made famous during the Spanish-American war. I'm not sure how many men there were, but they were never heard from again. I have one or two history books printed in the U.S., but none mention this for some reason or other. My grandfather was asked to go to Russia sometime after 1918. He refused. I think the documentary was telling it from European and perhaps Russian points of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia
[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]
If you are asking about a book which discusses the American invasion of Communist Russia just after Lenin took power, the easiest book to obtain is The Decision to Intervene, by George F. Kennan.
http://www.amazon.ca/Decision-Intervene-George-Kennan/dp/0393302172
As well, there was an American expeditionary force which entered Russia near Murmansk around 1918.
wikipedia
Thanks for the info, Jeff. I'll try to read it. I assume its the same Kennan who was the mastermind of the postwar anti-Soviet "containment" policy.
BTW,the Entente(Allied) invasions of 1918-20 really did reinforce siege mentality of the new Soviet Russia. In much of Russian sources, Entente is labelled "intervents". Japanese were the worst of the invaders, since they helped themselves to Russian land and resources.
[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Why did you bring this up,Cueball? This happened right before WWII.I was talking about the Japanese invasion of Soviet Russia and its alliance with the White Guard. For example Far East Communist commander Sergey Lazo was executed by the Japanese and Whites when he was tossed into a chimney in 1920.
Anyway, I searched for the Russian-Koreans and found an entire article. Well,since youre in a prickly mood, here's the quote you seek:
Russian-Koreans(wikipedia)
Still, Russians supported korean independence movement. Looks like some Koreans also fought for the Red cause in the Far East:
No need to simplify history, Cueball. many were deported by Stalin. But surely, North American democracies would never arrest Asian minorities.
Oh wait [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
I am talking about the existance of a substantial Korean minority in the regions disputed by Japan. Later deported. The fatc that they were deported proves that they were there.
Therefore, I simply don't understand how the "land and resources" taken by the Japanese belonged to Russia, as you stated, since the Koreans and other Asians groups were evidently there long before the Czar came and claimed it as Russian.
I used the evidence of the deportation to show the prexistance of a local minority, that should by my standards have had the primary claim to the land whatever the Japanese and the Russians thought.
BTW, Lazo wasn't tossed into a chimney but fried in the furnace of a train engine.
[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Whatever you say, Cueball. I was addressing the issue of Allied intervention inside Russia. If you look into the article I posted, you'll notice that Korean labourers came into Russian Far East after it became Russian land. To clarify, it would be the local Siberian tribes and maybe the Chinese who could hold claim to the land.
As for Lazo, I knew that already, I was just simplifying. See the dangers of simplification?
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
He was a hero in Moldavia since he was born there.
BTW, Cueball I would talk more about this stuff, but I gathered from other thread taht your PM box is always full.
Technically? No. However....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwo_Jima#U.S._nuclear_arms_base
I was really only using the Koreans as an example, I even said other Asian minorities to be more inclusive. The main thrust of the point is really that the idea that the Eastern USSR was, or even now, is integral to traditional Russian or Slavic territory is very dubious.
So when we talk about the Russians being in a purely defensive posture vis the multiple post-revolution invasions, we are being a little to tidy with our analysis, I think. I think much of the post Rovlutionary re-assertion of Czarist imperial borders was really just Soviet reassertion of Russian imperailism.
The war beteween Japan and Russia, post-revolutionary or otherwise at the begining of the 20th century arguably has more of the flavour of the powerful divying up the spoils, rather than one side or the other justly defending their traditional territories from outside agression.
Though I agree the Russians really were in the defensive posture vis the Japanese themselves, all the way through to Khalin Gol.
PS PM me if you like, if it doesn't work, leave a note elsewhere on the board. It is not always full but often is.
[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I like the phrase "we are being a bit too tidy with our analysis".
If the USSR was not in a purely defensive posture when Allied Forces entered space occupied by Russian imperialism, it suggests some kind of right to the land that the Siberian tribes were being deprived of. Perhaps they did not wish to be part of the USSR?
Now, apply that analysis to Serbia/Kosovo. Try not to be too tidy in the analysis.
If any one has a tidy analysis of the Balkans it is you, actually. Firstly because, at the point at which the Balkan states begin to evolve clear nationalist movements at the begining of the 19th century, all are more or less are starting at ground zero.
Trying to paint Serbia as a Balkan hyper-power asserting its inexonerable will over the rest of the Balkans is patently absurd, for a number or reasons. Among which is the fact that Yugolzvia comes into existance at the will of the Paris Peace conference and is an act of your cherished "international community." It is also not simply and imposition, but something supported by numerous factions within each community. And in fact up until Radic's assassination by Serb ultra-nationalist was supported by the Croat nationalists of the Hrvatska Peasant Party, and whose main point of contention was not Croatias inclusion in a greater Slavic republic but his opposition to it being a consitutional monarchy led by a Serbian King (Karadjordevic.)
If anything the suprior power in pre-WW1 Balkans is actually Bulgaria, and this is the reason that every single one of its neighbours went to war with it in 1912, breaking up the anti-Ottoman alliance.
Further, the second rendition of Yugolsavia, that of Tito in the post-WW2 era, came into existance as an affirmation of the Federalist position pf Radic supported by most Croat nationalists. It is not a mere political anomaly that Tito was a Croat. So post WW2 Yugoslavia is really the reacreation of the previous country ammended to be a Federalist state along the lines of that propsed by Croats under the Yugoslavian constitutional monarchy, and also comes about as a result of the throwing off of the German war occupation, not as an act of agressive military campaigns of Serbs against Bosniaks, Croats and Montenegrans.
So, in fact, while Soviet dominance in Siberia and the Caucuses comes as a reassertion Czarist right of conquest, the borders of Yugoslavia were mainly created as political solutions resulting from the need to create national structures to replace those of the imperial powers which previously ruled the region -- Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans.
In fact the only military, campaigns conducted by Serbs (other than those of the early 90's) in contested regions happened during the war against the Ottomans in 1912 in the region in Macedonia where the allies Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all cooperated in divying up the Ottoman territories of Macedonia, and also of course against Bulgaria, after the collapse of the anti-Ottoman alliance, in order to redistribute the spoils of the anti-Ottoman campaign.
There was no campaign against the Croats or Bosniaks or Slovenes, as these territories were all included in Yugoslavia as part of the poltical solution devised by the League of Nations.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say.
[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
But you say that, by definition, Serbia couldn't be an imperialist power in the Balkans.
Oh, ok then. I'll let the Kosovars know.
Well we can be sure imperialism didn't die with the Tsars considering the 20 some odd countries armies and mercenaries representing every interest from British royalty to the Tsar's former personal guards to Cossacks & White Russians to Japanese imperialism to pox Americana to Kaiser Wilhelm and mercenaries, who continued to dream of world domination after defeat in 1918 and marauding willy nilly through Russia at the time. There was nothing tidy about it.
Imagine mercenaries and imperialist armies from over 20 nations intervening in the American civil war to prop up the Confederacy.
And the west thought they were going to hack off pieces of China for themselves with backing Chiang Kai Shek who fled to Formosa with the bank of China and imperial treasures after murdering 10 million Maoists and Chinese in general.
[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Self-serving rhetoric is not a replacement for knowledge founded in studying the history.
There is of course anomalies to the historical tendencies I outlined, and I don't really object to your characterization of the situation of the Albanians in Kosovo, as you would know if you had any clue about the history I am discussing because I explicitly outlined the single sailent example of Serbian conquest by force, which was during the anti-Ottoman campaign in which Kosovo became part of Serbia, prior to Serbia becoming part of Yugoslavia.
Yet I am trying to paint a picture of the main themes of Yugoslav history, in comparison to the main themes in Soviet history, which you asked me to do. You are merely trumpeting your ideological horn, which is why you missed the fact that my outline accounted for the content of your missive.
Of course the situation of the Alabanian peoples was substantially different than that of the slavic people, living in Yugoslavia. It wasn't called Yugoslavia, for nothing
In general, the fact is that Yugoslavia came together as a poltical solution, to account for the retraction of two empires, the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians. In general, especially when speaking of the Caucuses and the east, the fact is that the USSR came together as the reassertion of the right of imperial conquests of the Czar.
[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Yes, or imagine someone preventing Russia from asserting domination over Latvia!
Obviously, "propping up" Latvia would be wrong, since Russia could easily dominate the Latvians!
But of course, this example isn't analogous to Cuebby's discussion of Siberia, because that is in the EAST of Russia, where Latvia is in the WEST!
Back to manicheanism for you guys, I guess.