Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tyran wrote:

With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.

True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And will occupy it forever.

Nothing is forever. Though some things can feel like it.

Someone clearly needs to catch up on their Filmography;

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.

True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.

Survival is a more immediate concern for Ukraine, as it is the one that is actually collapsing.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.

True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.

I hope you are not questioning the patriotism of us Crimeans?


Regardless, governments may come and go, but Russia remains Russia. And Russia will never give up Crimea. Crimea is sacred ground. Or to quote V.V. Putin: "And this gives us every reason to say that to Russia Crimea, ancient Korsun, Chersonesus, Sevastopol have huge civilisational and even sacred significance. Just like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for those who believe in Islam or Judaism. Exactly so is the way we are going to treat this now and forever" Crimea has been Russian for centuries, and it will remain Russian for the next centuries too, if not more.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


You said 'you' and I corrected you. That's not being narrow minded. Because I come from a country that experienced pretty much that, I can say that Russia's actions disturb me. Right now, Joe Stalin is being called a hero in the streets of Russia and hte russian government seems ot have reached the point they're believing their own propaganda. I find that as disturbing as I would the German government hailing the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, and building statues to him in front of the Reichstag.

No that comes after re-releasing Mein Kampf, in Germany, which can't happen because it's illegal. Oh wait it is legal now, isn't it.

Yaraton wrote:
If only Russia instead of helping US in the war with UK let the Brits to drown their colony in blood. Perhaps we wouldn't have now a terrorist-sponsoring and Fascist-supporting nation.

QFT

 loki old fart wrote:

No that comes after re-releasing Mein Kampf, in Germany, which can't happen because it's illegal. Oh wait it is legal now, isn't it.

No, it actually still isn't. It's just in public domain. Reprinting it without the extensive annotations about how bad, bad, bad, and poorly written it is, is considered publishing hate material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Someone clearly needs to catch up on their Filmography;

Sure, we know Putin's real message is just

 BaronIveagh wrote:

*points to his 'location'* Because this ISP routes my traffic through the US, I get a little US flag on this board.

So because no one knows where you from you can offend people anyway you want and no one cat tell you to go pound sand? That's cute.

Actually we do, but we are not, as of yet, a member state.

Let me know when you become a recognizable sovereign state so we could compare your history and culture throughout the ages and the Russian.

Funny, between his death and now most of his statues were torn down, and something called 'десталинизация'? Someone named Nikita Khrushchev gave a long speech about it, I seem to recall.

Funny that you equal former Soviet government and Soviet people. In some parts of the world it's called "bigotry". You wouldn't be the one who thinks that all Germans are still in love with Hitler, wouldn't you?

Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.

You should check more often. " National Bolshevik Front" doesn't exist anymore, or rather it changed the name and officially re-designed their ideology so they wouldn't get banned. I've never heard of "Eurasia Party". The quick search shows:

The Eurasia Party is based on the following five principles:

It is a geopolitical party of the patriots of Russia, of the étatists.
It is a social party, believing that the development of the market must serve the national interest. Interests of the state are in command and administrative resources must be de-privatized.
It is a traditionalist-communist party, founded on a system of bolshevik values elaborated by the traditional Eurasian confessions – Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.[1] The Church is separated from the State in some degree from the society, culture, education, and information, and it is controlled by the state.
It is a national party. In it the representatives of the national movements – first of all, Russian but also Tatar, Yakut, Tuva, Chechen, Kalmyk, Ingush, and all the rest – can find a way to express their political and cultural aspirations.
It is a regional party. The rectification and salvation of Russia will come from the regions, where the people have saved their communist roots, the sentiment of the past, and family values.

Are you sure you are qualified to talk about what is an "extremist" political view? LDPR are just Putin's pocket "nationalists", who yup about anything all the time but always vote exactly like the ruling "United Russia" party. Again, it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.

I have no desire to read 160 pages of Russiphobic crap. As for Stalin, I am not a big fan of his ideology or methods but we have to compare them to what was around the Globe at that time. USA imprisoned it's Japanese-Americans and took away their properties during WW2. Want to cry me a river?

Our war of 1812 we would have been very happy to see Russia not help at all. We were on the other side, fighting against the US.

I'm not really clear what you're talking about here, since as Alexander spent most of that time period dealing with Napoleon on his doorstep, he was not in much position to aid anyone.

Since I have no idea of your nationality I have no further plans to discuss who helped whom and when.

As for Alexander I, he beat Napoleon right back to France. You should read about it.

We'll quietly forget about that 'Ribbentrop Pact' in Europe to divide Poland between Germany and Russia, where Russia invaded other countries in support of the Nazis

Considering that 'Ribbentrop Pact' has happened a year after Poland itself participated happily in the dividing of another European country with the Nazis, I'd say it got what it deserved.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Sure, we know Putin's real message is just

Spoiler:

Can't we all just learn to;

 Sigvatr wrote:


Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it.

Yeah, let's not to count what has happened in Iraq in 2003.

 Yaraton wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it.

Yeah, let's not to count what has happened in Iraq in 2003.

Bush is still in power? I thought it was Obama.

(emphasis mine)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Bush is still in power? I thought it was Obama.

(emphasis mine)

Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

 Yaraton wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Bush is still in power? I thought it was Obama.

(emphasis mine)

Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

As much as I don't like Wubbya I am pretty sure he is not a despot who assassinates political opponents abroad and in front of the Kremlin.

 Yaraton wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Bush is still in power? I thought it was Obama.

(emphasis mine)

Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

No, not at all. It's quite an important distinction, in fact. Now I'm not defending the Iraq war, I think it was a terrible, terrible idea, and that the Bush admin. had no right to do that. But surely you can see the difference between the actions of a past administration 13 years ago and the current admin, who's entire plan was to just get out of there. And then compare it to the same leader's administration who did this a little under 2 years ago, and is still maintaining it as the right thing and not backing down. Not only that, the difference between then getting out of a country and getting it to be self governing, and annexing it.

The action taken in Iraq by the Bush Administration were wrong, and should never have been taken, but to suggest they are the same as the actions currently being taken in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea by the Putin Administration is wrong. They are both bad actions, but they are not the same, nor are they equally bad.

 Yaraton wrote:

So because no one knows where you from you can offend people anyway you want and no one cat tell you to go pound sand? That's cute.

Actually quite a few do, and they even post on this forum. Both the 'knowing where I'm from' part and the 'telling me to pound sand'.

 Yaraton wrote:

Let me know when you become a recognizable sovereign state so we could compare your history and culture throughout the ages and the Russian.

We are a recognized sovereign state. By act of the US Congress no less.

 Yaraton wrote:

I have no desire to read 160 pages of Russiphobic crap. As for Stalin, I am not a big fan of his ideology or methods but we have to compare them to what was around the Globe at that time. USA imprisoned it's Japanese-Americans and took away their properties during WW2. Want to cry me a river?

I'm not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance (it's not 160 pages of Russiophobia, though Iron Cap and I debate at length at one point the origins of the Crimean tartars and play an interesting game of 'name this tank monument') and frankly, whataboutism is not a defense. It hasn't been since Nuremberg.

 Yaraton wrote:

Considering that 'Ribbentrop Pact' has happened a year after Poland itself participated happily in the dividing of another European country with the Nazis, I'd say it got what it deserved.

I can't say I recall hearing about the Poles doing mass executions of captured Czech prisoners. You'll have to point me to their mass graves so that we can all see how the Poles 'deserved it'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Yaraton wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Bush is still in power? I thought it was Obama.

(emphasis mine)

Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

No, not at all. It's quite an important distinction, in fact. Now I'm not defending the Iraq war, I think it was a terrible, terrible idea, and that the Bush admin. had no right to do that. But surely you can see the difference between the actions of a past administration 13 years ago and the current admin, who's entire plan was to just get out of there. And then compare it to the same leader's administration who did this a little under 2 years ago, and is still maintaining it as the right thing and not backing down. Not only that, the difference between then getting out of a country and getting it to be self governing, and annexing it.

The action taken in Iraq by the Bush Administration were wrong, and should never have been taken, but to suggest they are the same as the actions currently being taken in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea by the Putin Administration is wrong. They are both bad actions, but they are not the same, nor are they equally bad.

Here is difference between me and you: I don't use the noun "annexation" to what has happened with Crimea in 2014. Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years. The population of Crime never wanted to be part of Ukraine and when the neo-Nazi Junta got power in Kiev it had a referendum where the people of Crimea in majority decided to succeed from Bandera-lovers and join Russia.

There plenty of examples throughout the history when countries occupy illegally the territories that don't belong to them like Tibet in China but saying that "Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it." is pure demagoguery.

I think if there was a russia bingo card we would of just hit all of the squares only in a few posts.

 Yaraton wrote:
Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years.

I'm curious how you think the transfer was illegal. By my understanding of the governments at the time, it was very much a legal act.

You *are* aware that governments can transfer territory between one another legally, correct? As in without a war going on or the consent of the local people. Or are you proposing that Canada and the US are also illegally occupying Russian territory?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:

The population of Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine and when the neo-Nazi Junta got power in Kiev it had a referendum where the people of Crimea in majority decided to succeed from Bandera-lovers and join Russia.

So many loaded words here.

I'll raise one objection to the referendum: due to the less than massive turnout and the fact that the choices offered on the referendum were basically 'Yes, Russia NOW' or 'Yes, Russia later'. Where's the 'Crimea for Crimeans' option? If what you're saying is true, logically that would have been the first thing people thought of. Yet, it's no where to be seen.

That's why I look on it dubiously. A natural revolution, even one with an aim of joining another country, always has a sort of interim state. The only time I've seen where it devolved to another country this fast before was when the choices were 'Yes, Germany' and 'Yes, Czechoslovakia'. .

 Yaraton wrote:
Here is difference between me and you: I don't use the noun "annexation" to what has happened with Crimea in 2014.

Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).

Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years.

That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century. It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Actually quite a few do, and they even post on this forum. Both the 'knowing where I'm from' part and the 'telling me to pound sand'.

Good for you! I should also start telling people that I ma not a Canadian but "Haudenosaunee". Who the hell will ever be able to check that but it makes a nice trolling tactic.

We are a recognized sovereign state. By act of the US Congress no less.

Well why didn't you say that right away? So when do you think you will have an embassy open... anywhere outside of US?

I'm not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance (it's not 160 pages of Russiophobia, though Iron Cap and I debate at length at one point the origins of the Crimean tartars and play an interesting game of 'name this tank monument') and frankly, whataboutism is not a defense. It hasn't been since Nuremberg.

"Laughter is the Best Medicine." so go ahead. I've actually red the first 4 pages in this topic and decided that my psychological well-being is more important to me than going through every page and flagging people for Russophobia and bigotry.

I can't say I recall hearing about the Poles doing mass executions of captured Czech prisoners. You'll have to point me to their mass graves so that we can all see how the Poles 'deserved it'.

I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.

Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.

 Yaraton wrote:


I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.

This is where reading the entire thread would have been useful cause this has already been gone over.

Poland was a complete mess after WWI. As to the Russian (not Soviet quite yet) POWs, the issue was that Poland had no idea what to do with them. The Russian Empire dissolved in 1917, and no one knew what to do with POWs of a state that no longer existed and whose territory was actively embroiled in civil war and political upheaval. Throw in that tens of thousands of Poles were starving from famine and dying of illness, is it really surprising that the POWs no one knew what to do with died too? Not to mention that in 1919, the Polish-Soviet War began and Poland wasn't going to release POWs who could end up on the other side. Plus the Russian POWs were not entirely willing to go back to Russia, especially the officers and nobles, whose families were not fairing well in the new Bolshevik led state. And of course, Polish state in the 20s and 30s was one of the most inequitable states of the time. People talk about modern wealth inequality, Poland was a state where 1% of the population pretty much held everyone else in virtual slavery! My basic point is, the Second Polish Republic was a pretty gakky state for everyone to be in (except for those guys who owned all the land). Talking about that like it's something to hold against Poland now is rather pointless.

I have no idea how the hell Poles would execute injured Czech military personal on Czech territory after the Munich Agreement. That makes no sense what so ever and would be a serious case of weird history if true, but I'm not sure I'm gonna trust YouTube comments as a source for anything. If they told me 2 + 2 = 4, I'd take out a calculator just to be sure

 LordofHats wrote:


Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).

So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?

That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.

Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".

It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed

I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.

The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Poland_%281919%E2%80%9324%29

You may want to start taking something medicinal to combat that Russophobia of yours.

Well as a russian I am sure you are aware of Kievan rus correct? Then I am sure you know that at its height it was most of current ukraine, parts of crimea, and most of european russia correct? So in reality they were just giving back territory that was historically part of ukraine (since you know that seems to matter a lot to you).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).

So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?

That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.

Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".

It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed

I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.

The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Poland_%281919%E2%80%9324%29

You may want to start taking something medicinal to combat that Russophobia of yours.

Well since you also failed to link that russia had more Polish prisoners die under their care than the number of russians that were thought to have died.

 LordofHats wrote:

This is where reading the entire thread would have been useful cause this has already been gone over.

Poland was a complete mess after WWI. As to the Russian (not Soviet quite yet) POWs, the issue was that Poland had no idea what to do with them. The Russian Empire dissolved in 1917, and no one knew what to do with POWs of a state that no longer existed and whose territory was actively embroiled in civil war and political upheaval. Throw in that tens of thousands of Poles were starving from famine and dying of illness, is it really surprising that the POWs no one knew what to do with died too? Not to mention that in 1919, the Polish-Soviet War began and Poland wasn't going to release POWs who could end up on the other side. Plus the Russian POWs were not entirely willing to go back to Russia, especially the officers and nobles, whose families were not fairing well in the new Bolshevik led state. And of course, Polish state in the 20s and 30s was one of the most inequitable states of the time. People talk about modern wealth inequality, Poland was a state where 1% of the population pretty much held everyone else in virtual slavery! My basic point is, the Second Polish Republic was a pretty gakky state for everyone to be in (except for those guys who owned all the land). Talking about that like it's something to hold against Poland now is rather pointless.

But it did happened, didn't it?

I have no idea how the hell Poles would execute injured Czech military personal on Czech territory after the Munich Agreement. That makes no sense what so ever and would be a serious case of weird history if true, but I'm not sure I'm gonna trust YouTube comments as a source for anything. If they told me 2 + 2 = 4, I'd take out a calculator just to be sure

If we had any Czechs on this forum it could've been easily verified. I am not saying that something like this happened, only that I was told it did.

 Yaraton wrote:
So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?

Did Crimea change sovereignty to Ukraine in 1954? Yes? That's all annexation is. The transfer of territory from one political entity to another. While it does carry a negative connotation (usually such that the annexing state is treated as an aggressor), that's not really part of the definition of the term.

Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it.

That hair is very nicely split.

As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".

Yeah. Stalin was kind of a dick to everyone. Not really surprising the USSR wanted to tone down the guy's legacy after he died. Doesn't really change that the USSR was effectively a mechanism of Russian hegemony/empire throughout the 20th century.

I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.

So... Just like every other state that exists, and ever will exist, Ukraine came into existence by incorporating territories from other states. I'm not sure that makes a case for anything, let alone territorial rights to Crimea.

 Ustrello wrote:
Well as a russian I am sure you are aware of Kievan rus correct? Then I am sure you know that at its height it was most of current ukraine, parts of crimea, and most of european russia correct? So in reality they were just giving back territory that was historically part of ukraine (since you know that seems to matter a lot to you).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).

So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?

That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.

Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".

It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed

I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.

The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Poland_%281919%E2%80%9324%29

You may want to start taking something medicinal to combat that Russophobia of yours.

Well since you also failed to link that russia had more Polish prisoners die under their care than the number of russians that were thought to have died.

You should really work on you history knowledge.

Kievan Rus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'

Kievan Rus was formed on the ruins of the Kingdom of Khazaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

And no, Kievan Rus not equals "Ukrainian". "Ukranians" are an artificial nation, created in the beginning of the 19th century, before that people who were living on that territory were called "malorus" and "ukranian" was derogatory term, created in Poland. The "cultural "aspect of the newly created nation was largely borrowed form the Kingdom of Dalmatia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia which was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Also, I know now that you are polish.

The point sailed so far over your head I think it has achieved orbit, we should work for NASA it would save my country a lot of money.

 Yaraton wrote:
"Ukranians" are an artificial nation, created in the beginning of the 19th century,

By that logic, all nations are artificial, which is decent logic given that 'nation' is nothing more than a social construct that exists solely because people proclaim it to exist and other people recognize their proclamation.

 Yaraton wrote:

Well why didn't you say that right away? So when do you think you will have an embassy open... anywhere outside of US?

We have at the one in China that I know of, considering China lent us half a billion dollars (Yes, we even have a national debt).

 Yaraton wrote:

I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.

Hold on a second, first you're basing your argument with 'I met these guys posting comments on YouTube' and then you're denying the Katyn massacre took place?

One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. Hungary did annex the area that is now in the Ukraine. Some Poles did cross over the boarder and join the Sich, an insurgent force opposing the annexation (Which made the whole thing a bit surreal, as both the annexation and the resistance to it were both backed by the Germans). Polish members captured by the Hungarians were turned back over to the Poles for illegal boarder crossing. Some have stated that Polish soldiers did shoot some of these people, though the numbers are unlikely, considering the Sich at best could field about 2k men, so the idea of 500 them being shot by the Poles seems a bit unlikely, and there's never been any direct evidence found.

Two: During the Polish-Soviet war both sides committed horrors against their POWs. The Poles killed or allowed to die about 1/4th of the prisoners (around 16-20k). The Soviets about half (of 50k POWs). I could show a picture of what the Soviets were doing to amuse themselves with the Polish POWs, but the mods here would freak out. They tend to oppose photos of men with rods rammed up their ass while hung from a tree with ropes.

Three: the finding of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Soviet Union in 1990 was that yes, the Katyn massacre took place much as the Germans described it, and some things the Germans didn't even know went on on top that, and it had been ordered by Stalin. The victims, according to declassified Soviet documents, consisted of an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 non-commissioned officers, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, 131 refugees, 20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots.

I'm curious how the 300 physicians 'deserved' to be executed in a forest on the 3rd of April 1940. How did those teachers and engineers warrant a bullet in the head? You're quick to justify horror Yaraton, or try and excuse it by claiming that others did worse. What's your answer to this?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement.

I did check this one Baron and there is actually a small area of Czechoslovakia annexed by Poland in the wake of the German Annexation. However there was no fighting, so I'm not sure how the Poles could execute soldiers at a medical center. Still not going to discount it could have happened, but I've seen nothing that says that particular event did happen.