By the by, the take-away from this is naturally an affirmation of the centuries-old role of Russia as the wise arbiter of continental affairs.
Not to get too far afield but to draw relevance of this typically good thread by Baron von PWN to the modern day, this is one of the key reasons ol' Saxi supports Dr. Ron Paul who has variously affirmed that Europe is, rightfully, part of Russia's sphere of influence and this status must be respected by the United States and that Russia must be returned to its historic role as the guarantor of European peace and security.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
patches70 wrote:Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?
Yes and yes.
(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.
(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.
Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.
Exactly.
And the Poles were intending to annex all of Silesia, eventually. Zaolzi was meant to be only the first step.
WAIT! This is all new to me.
Which book/article discusses this?
Couldn't find a lot of material and I don't want to spend the whole day on this. Here's a few quick links to get you started:
saxitoxin wrote:
The history books. Many topics are forbidden to discuss in the west...
FALSE
saxitoxin wrote:
... and intentionally omitted in the curriculum of the government-run schools if they are at odds with the official narrative of the 20th century.
CORRECT
You write these as-if they are the same... they aren't.
These historical facts are not 'forbidden'. They may have been left out of basic history classes for a variety of reasons...
1) Political / Propaganda reasons
2) Education Leaders feel they are not relevant or historically important enough to be included. You frankly can't included EVERY fact from history.
3) Time... limited time and decisions by educators to focus on other things they believe to be relevant.
patches70 wrote:Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?
Yes and yes.
(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.
(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.
Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.
Exactly.
And the Poles were intending to annex all of Silesia, eventually. Zaolzi was meant to be only the first step.
WAIT! This is all new to me.
Which book/article discusses this?
The history books. Many topics are forbidden to discuss in the west and intentionally omitted in the curriculum of the government-run schools if they are at odds with the official narrative of the 20th century.
The Polish Ambassador to the Hitlerian Court, Józef Lipski, met repeatedly with Germany about the best way Czechoslovakia could be carved-up between Germany, Poland and Hungary. After WWII Lipski formed the so-called "Polish Government-in-Exile" in London, which was a farcical anti-communist collaborator gang upon whom NATO bestowed legitimacy as Poland's exiled dissident resistance from the overbearing communist oppressors, etc. etc., the usual propaganda based in delusion and fantasy. These collaborators are now all feted as "heroes" and "courageous dissidents" even though they lit the match of WWII.
The Polish invasion of Slovakia was the reason Czechoslovakia chose to surrender rather than fight Germany. The CZ Army was most modern in Europe and could field 30 divisions on mobilization, versus Germany's 38. The USSR also tasked a bomber wing to the airfield at Bratislava to help CZ defend against a German attack should CZ request it. But CZ knew they couldn't defend being invaded from three sides by Germany, Poland and Hungary at the same time, even with Soviet aid. After the British and French sold the Czechs and Slovaks down the river, only Stalin was ready to stand by and aid them, just like only Stalin accepted thousands of communist, Roma and Jewish refugees from Germany in the 30s when immigration by those classes was banned by the US and UK.
WWII was - like WWI - entirely a war of Britain's manufacture in which Germany played role of pliant dupe. When Britain got in over its head it had to then dupe the US into entering the war - as it did in WWI - but then got surprise burned by the US under Truman's conniving, which had not been expected as the UK capitalist class owned Roosevelt. The salutations for all victories and moral leadership belongs to the USSR.
hmm.. I guess my government run school differed from yours, becuase I remember learning something like this there.
Symmetry wrote:
Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.
Given that Russia had a treaty with Germany and together both nations smashed Poland from two sides then Russia sowed the seeds for the spilling of her own blood. Russia enabled Germany to take the path of war. Stalin was just as despicable as Hitler.
The world would have been well served had we listened to Patton.....
Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?
Its an argument that Russia was the one with the trust issues.
Symmetry wrote:
Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.
Given that Russia had a treaty with Germany and together both nations smashed Poland from two sides then Russia sowed the seeds for the spilling of her own blood. Russia enabled Germany to take the path of war. Stalin was just as despicable as Hitler.
The world would have been well served had we listened to Patton.....
Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?
Its an argument that Russia was the one with the trust issues.
So you're saying that the US trusted the USSR?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:
Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.
Given that Russia had a treaty with Germany and together both nations smashed Poland from two sides then Russia sowed the seeds for the spilling of her own blood. Russia enabled Germany to take the path of war. Stalin was just as despicable as Hitler.
The world would have been well served had we listened to Patton.....
Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?
Its an argument that Russia was the one with the trust issues.
So you're saying that the US trusted the USSR?
Survival makes for strange bedfellows, and just because people are allies doesn't mean there is trust there. I wasn't exactly commenting about who the USA trusted or didn't trust, I was commenting on Patches point that Russia was not to be trusted and just as bad as Germany. Sure they bore a huge brunt as far as deaths, but that's because the deaths consisted mostly of peasants from a Communist country, as opposed to soldiers. The huge price Russia bore was the price to keep Russia from falling and IMO, as far as you guys's comments are concerned, Russia's sacrifice was for Russia and not for the allies. And when they got to Berlin and Hitler, they were allies no more. They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
Phatscotty wrote:They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
You know that Russia never invaded Japan, right?
Last edited by Symmetry on Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
You know that Russia never invaded Japan, right?
Correction for Symmetry. Russia invaded Japanese interests and Japanese holdings.
Phatscotty wrote:
Survival makes for strange bedfellows, and just because people are allies doesn't mean there is trust there. I wasn't exactly commenting about who the USA trusted or didn't trust, I was commenting on Patches point that Russia was not to be trusted and just as bad as Germany. Sure they bore a huge brunt as far as deaths, but that's because the deaths consisted mostly of peasants from a Communist country, as opposed to soldiers. The huge price Russia bore was the price to keep Russia from falling and IMO, as far as you guys's comments are concerned, Russia's sacrifice was for Russia and not for the allies. And when they got to Berlin and Hitler, they were allies no more. They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
I certainly agree the Soviets joined the pacific theater for it own interests, earlier in the thread I have been trying to bring some context to Soviet actions. As it is a rather typical reaction to ascribe malicious intent to just about any Soviet action.
Aside from the moral justifications or reasons, I think it is fair to say the Soviets joining the pacific theater was the primary motivator for causing imperial Japan to surrender when it did and how it did.
Phatscotty wrote:They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
You know that Russia never invaded Japan, right?
They kindof did they took the Kuril islands which were considered to be part of the home Islands and are still claimed by Japan.
Phatscotty wrote:They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
You know that Russia never invaded Japan, right?
They kindof did they took the Kuril islands which were considered to be part of the home Islands and are still claimed by Japan.
And for that matter, Manchuria was so integral to the Japanese supply of coal and other raw materials that invading Manchuria was a dagger to the heart of Japan.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
Phatscotty wrote:They only invaded Japan for their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are really trying to give Russia some credit throughout this thread.
You know that Russia never invaded Japan, right?
They kindof did they took the Kuril islands which were considered to be part of the home Islands and are still claimed by Japan.
And for that matter, Manchuria was so integral to the Japanese supply of coal and other raw materials that invading Manchuria was a dagger to the heart of Japan.
Dukasaur doesn't understand how to use metaphors.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
saxitoxin wrote:By the by, the take-away from this is naturally an affirmation of the centuries-old role of Russia as the wise arbiter of continental affairs.
Not to get too far afield but to draw relevance of this typically good thread by Baron von PWN to the modern day, this is one of the key reasons ol' Saxi supports Dr. Ron Paul who has variously affirmed that Europe is, rightfully, part of Russia's sphere of influence and this status must be respected by the United States and that Russia must be returned to its historic role as the guarantor of European peace and security.
