Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
Thanks Tree35Thanks

Thread: Russia's involvement in US Civil War

  1. #11
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    21,759
    Thanks
    18489

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    America is weird that way... There is a Moscow in Idaho. St. Peterburg in Florida. Odessa in fucking Texas lol And "Poland" in Main Amazing...
    Yeah, and Intercourse PA, I think BigLeRoy lives there!!!
    Thanks from The Man and BigLeRoy

  2. #12
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,805
    Thanks
    38807

    From
    Nashville, TN
    The American Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia) was a United States Army force that was involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russian Empire, during the end of World War I after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920. As a result of this expedition, which failed but became known to the Bolsheviks, early relations between the United States and the Soviet Union would be low.
    U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's claimed objectives for sending troops to Siberia were as much diplomatic as they were military. One major reason was to rescue the 40,000 men of the Czechoslovak Legion, who were being held up by Bolshevik forces as they attempted to make their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, and it was hoped, eventually to the Western Front. Another major reason was to protect the large quantities of military supplies and railroad rolling stock that the United States had sent to the Russian Far East in support of the prior Russian government's war efforts on the Eastern Front. Equally stressed by Wilson was the need to "steady any efforts at self-government or self defense in which the Russians themselves may be willing to accept assistance." At the time, Bolshevik forces controlled only small pockets in Siberia and President Wilson wanted to make sure that neither Cossack marauders nor the Japanese military would take advantage of the unstable political environment along the strategic railroad line and in the resource-rich Siberian regions that straddled it.[1]
    Concurrently and for similar reasons, about 5,000 American soldiers were sent to Arkhangelsk (Archangel), Russia by Wilson as part of the separate Polar Bear Expedition.
    More at the link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ..._Force_Siberia

  3. #13
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,805
    Thanks
    38807

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    America is weird that way... There is a Moscow in Idaho. St. Peterburg in Florida. Odessa in fucking Texas lol And "Poland" in Main Amazing...
    Don't forget Paris, Texas.
    Thanks from The Man and BigLeRoy

  4. #14
    The Un-Holy One The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    33,773
    Thanks
    19337

    From
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    The American Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia) was a United States Army force that was involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russian Empire, during the end of World War I after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920. As a result of this expedition, which failed but became known to the Bolsheviks, early relations between the United States and the Soviet Union would be low.
    U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's claimed objectives for sending troops to Siberia were as much diplomatic as they were military. One major reason was to rescue the 40,000 men of the Czechoslovak Legion, who were being held up by Bolshevik forces as they attempted to make their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, and it was hoped, eventually to the Western Front. Another major reason was to protect the large quantities of military supplies and railroad rolling stock that the United States had sent to the Russian Far East in support of the prior Russian government's war efforts on the Eastern Front. Equally stressed by Wilson was the need to "steady any efforts at self-government or self defense in which the Russians themselves may be willing to accept assistance." At the time, Bolshevik forces controlled only small pockets in Siberia and President Wilson wanted to make sure that neither Cossack marauders nor the Japanese military would take advantage of the unstable political environment along the strategic railroad line and in the resource-rich Siberian regions that straddled it.[1]
    Concurrently and for similar reasons, about 5,000 American soldiers were sent to Arkhangelsk (Archangel), Russia by Wilson as part of the separate Polar Bear Expedition.
    More at the link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ..._Force_Siberia
    Indeed. The British also sent forces, I believe.

    They didn't actually get involved in any real fighting though. Nothing big enough to really turn the tide for the Whites...

  5. #15
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,342
    Thanks
    29705

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Why would the UK have supported the Confederacy?

  6. #16
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,805
    Thanks
    38807

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Why would the UK have supported the Confederacy?
    cotton, the Brits controlled the worlds textile industry at the time.
    Thanks from Hollywood, The Man and BigLeRoy

  7. #17
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    65,591
    Thanks
    30790

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Why would the UK have supported the Confederacy?
    For awhile the Brits were smuggling firearms and other military supplies up through Mexico & Texas to the CSA. The capture of New Orleans, Vicksburg & Memphis pretty much gave the Union control of the Mississippi River and sealed off Texas from the rest of the CSA.
    But Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a good political move on Lincoln's part. How could the Brits, who had outlawed slavery years before, openly support the CSA after that? Lincoln successfuly made the war about freeing the slaves in the minds of many, framing public opinion for political reasons is nothing new.
    My opinion of course, but many historian support that belief.
    Thanks from Tedminator and The Man

  8. #18
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,805
    Thanks
    38807

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Indeed. The British also sent forces, I believe.

    They didn't actually get involved in any real fighting though. Nothing big enough to really turn the tide for the Whites...
    Ever see this movie?



    Another great doomed love story like Casablanca
    Thanks from Hollywood, The Man and BigLeRoy

  9. #19
    Mad Genius For Hire Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    16,323
    Thanks
    6721

    From
    Derpville USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    For awhile the Brits were smuggling firearms and other military supplies up through Mexico & Texas to the CSA. The capture of New Orleans, Vicksburg & Memphis pretty much gave the Union control of the Mississippi River and sealed off Texas from the rest of the CSA.
    But Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a good political move on Lincoln's part. How could the Brits, who had outlawed slavery years before, openly support the CSA after that? Lincoln successfuly made the war about freeing the slaves in the minds of many, framing public opinion for political reasons is nothing new.
    My opinion of course, but many historian support that belief.
    Interesting perspective, just goes to demonstrate, that the war had different meanings to those who participated. Very few who actually faught, owned slaves, most were fighting for independence from unfair trade with the north.
    Thanks from The Man

  10. #20
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    65,591
    Thanks
    30790

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    Interesting perspective, just goes to demonstrate, that the war had different meanings to those who participated. Very few who actually faught, owned slaves, most were fighting for independence from unfair trade with the north.
    Tell you what, you guys keep using the specific term "unfair trade WITH the north." Give me a few of the most troublesome examples of exactly what you refer to.
    And remember, these are reasons the south thought worth going to WAR over, killing hundreds of thousands people over.
    So let's hear them.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Russia's involvement in Libya
    By The Man in forum World Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12th August 2017, 04:43 PM
  2. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 16th February 2017, 07:58 AM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 17th December 2016, 07:50 AM
  4. Zero WH Involvement in IRS Screening
    By Babba in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12th May 2014, 06:49 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed