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.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
@Allod

The Germans were told they had to accept that or the other European countries would not accept German reunification. The likes of Margaret Thathcer were extremely hostile to the idea of a united Germany at the heart of Europe. Treaties such as that are all part of the general "keep the Germans down" mentality of the post war world.

Yes, I believe the Turks would argue that the Armenians should accept a similar reality. Most of the Armenians who lived in eastern Anatolia are dead. That does not mean people in Armenia feel any less strongly about this and retain a sense of wrongness about it.

So you're saying squatters rights essentially? Possession being 9/10 of the law?

That not whats just. That's real politick.

Oh, come on! Thatcher had a lot of misgivings about reunification, but Prussia wasn't one of them. She had just led the UK through an economic crisis and wasn't very keen on a united Germany changing the dynamics of European economics yet again, she probably realized that Germany would outgrow the industrial eye-level that the UK, France, Italy and the FRG had been on previously, and she opposed border changes as a matter of principle, which I can even get behind. She certainly didn't fear Kohl marching into the Sudetenland next.

And yes, it's the same thing with the Armenians. Even though this was genocide on a minority, and not a seizure of foreign territory, I say that wherever there was an Armenian majority is not Armenian land anymore, because the grandchildren, grand-grandchildren and grand-grand-grandchildren of the "squatters" are now living there. People have a right to their land, as in, the land that belongs to the living individuals.

Call it squatters' rights if you want, we're all squatters. To be just as placative as you were with the Armenians: I suppose the Americans can save themselves the hassle of another presidential election, because the US has to be given back to the natives, right?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Um, okay right. Influence, demographic, resources...these a re hugely important to every country in the world.

Maybe 20 out of 200, but, yeah, "every country in the world" will serve.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
(...) why people are so anxious about the rise of China with its billion inhabitants?

"Workbench of the world", as in, losing industry and thus employment to East Asia? To be perfectly honest I haven't heard "OMG the Chinese are on the rise, they will smash us!" since I've been out of school, which was longer ago than I like to think about.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Austria has only existed after the first world war because before then it was the Hapsburg Empire.

And as far as the concept of nationality is concerned, he would be completely right. Today's Austria was a German state outside of the (second) Empire, nothing more, nothing less. Our nationality only developed after being forbidden to join Germany, and people only began to see themselves as a "distinct German ethnicity" around WW2.

 sebster wrote:
who used to live somewhere at some specific point in the past is more important than who lives there now

This, incidentally, is what is most infuriating about the Argentinian claim to the Falkland Islands. Which show absolutely no regard as to the wishes of the inhabitants. In the 2013 sovereignty referendum the islanders voted overwhelmingly to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. In fact 'overwhelmingly' is probably an understatement; the results were something like 99.8% in favour.

I believe the UK's current policy on overseas territories is very fair. Anyone is welcome to remain or leave the United Kingdom at any time, so long as the majority of the population are in favour. The UK has obviously had a lot of problems in the past with territories such as N.Ireland, and I think we have really learned from that. I believe the present policy is an exceedingly good one.

The people who actually live in the Kaliningrad Oblast should have most (if not all) of the say regarding the sovereignty of their lands. It's really no one else's business. Especially not those whose only interest is in expanding their sphere of political influence.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Except for, y'know, the whole 'Prussia' thing...

And previously Prussia was part of the Holy Roman Empire, along with a bunch of other smaller states. You can't pull that one without having to concede that practically all of that area of Europe can technically lay claim to Kaliningrad on the same principle. It would be a bit daft if Italy could lay claim to ex-Prussian territory on the basis that part of Italy is descended from a state that once administered that section of land. It's no less daft if the Germans do it now.

I agree with you, but if you're going to use 'years of possession' as the basis for your argument that one party or the other doesn't have much of a claim, then the reality is that 'Germany' had possession of that territory for a few hundred years by way of its predecessor states which can trace a direct and legitimate lineage to the German Empire of the late 1800s.

Reality is, the person with the means to take and/or defend a parcel of land at any given time is the only party that really has any 'legitimate' claim to it.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, with your leaps and bounds in technology, I'm surprised you havent gone for round three with the US of A Just for the sake of argument here, we'll fight over Canada again, they won't terribly mind if we do.

Oh gwad!.. As if Americans don't shoot at us enough when we're on the same team.

Sorry mate, its cultural conditioning, we here the accents and think 'bad guys'. Why do you think all the Imperial types in Star Wars have English accents?? lol Now Aussies? Thats an accent you can trust!

chaos0xomega wrote:

I agree with you, but if you're going to use 'years of possession' as the basis for your argument that one party or the other doesn't have much of a claim, then the reality is that 'Germany' had possession of that territory for a few hundred years by way of its predecessor states which can trace a direct and legitimate lineage to the German Empire of the late 1800s

But 'Germany' hasn't had possession of it for hundreds of years by way of predecessor states. One single predecessor state had a claim. To make another analogy, it would be like the United Kingdom claiming that it inherited it's right to Normandy from the English, or the Russians claiming their right to own Kazakhstan from the Soviet Union. Just because two parcels of land used to belong to the same entity a hundred years ago, it does not grant successor states from one of those land parcels an automatic right to the second.

Otherwise, logically, you could flip it on its head, and say that actually, rather than returning Kaliningrad to Germany, Germany should be returning all of Prussia to Kaliningrad. They would have an equally strong claim. Germany is not Prussia, any more than Kaliningrad is. You could then turn around and say that Kaliningrad is not an independent state, but part of Russia, so it has no claim, but then Russia can turn around and say that the rest of Prussia is now part of Germany and not an independent state either.

This is of course, ignoring the fact that the Polish were there before Prussia, who then also has an equally valid claim if you're going to pull the argument from history.

Your argument is logically flawed, sir. Your original point was that Germany (via the German Empire through to the fall of the Third Reich) only had possession of the territory for x years, while Russia has had it for x-y (to imply an amount of time slightly less than but almost equal to x) years, and for that reason Germany doesn't have a legitimate claim.

To me, that says that the Russians have as good a claim to the place on the basis of 'history' as the Germans do.

Your posts since then are basically irrelevant, as they change to the criteria by which you evaluated legitimacy (again, the basis of history measured by period of ownership over the territory in question), in other words you are changing the argument.

Returning to the original point of contention (that is the period of time a state possessed the territory) I am pointing out that in actuality Germany has possessed the territory for far longer, via its predecessor state of Prussia. You can argue that fact is irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is that the monarch/head of state of the German Empire was the same monarch/head of state of the Kingdom of Prussia, meaning there is a direct line of succession there, which also means that the predecessor state, in this case isn't really a predecessor at all, just simply a former variant of the same state (ultimately the difference is the name with a slight change in governmental organization, with the same people in power). Similarly, the monarch of the prior state of Brandenburg-Prussia was also the same monarch of the Kingdom of Prussia at the time of that transition, which allows us to trace the 'lineage' of the territory back about 400 years along the same general continuity as the German Empire/Germany. Prior to that point the line of succession, etc. becomes fuzzy and unclear, and as such you cannot really claim the state prior to Brandenburg-Prussia to have really been 'German'.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Your argument is logically flawed, sir. Your original point was that Germany (via the German Empire through to the fall of the Third Reich) only had possession of the territory for x years, while Russia has had it for x-y (to imply an amount of time slightly less than but almost equal to x) years, and for that reason Germany doesn't have a legitimate claim.

Not quite. I'm saying that Russia and Germany as states both have possessed the land for roughly equivalent periods of time, therefore to discuss 'returning' the land to Germany is a bit daft, because the land has been 'Russian' for practically as long as it has been 'German'. In other words:

Ketara wrote:To me, that says that the Russians have as good a claim to the place on the basis of 'history' as the Germans do.

chaosxomega wrote:Your posts since then are basically irrelevant, as they change to the criteria by which you evaluated legitimacy (again, the basis of history measured by period of ownership over the territory in question), in other words you are changing the argument.

Howso? My posts since then were responses to yours. Waving them away as irrelevant doesn't ignore the fact that they poke holes in the claim that 'Kaliningrad was once Prussian, which is almost the same as Germany, so we should consider them the same'. Germany and Prussia are not the same thing. Why? Because Germany has lost the Prussian Monarchy. It's been taken over as a dictatorship, then split in half, and then reunited again. It's undergone more territorial and political changes since Prussia then I can shake a stick at. The only real claim that modern day Germany can have to possessing the land of Prussia is that both nations have occupied the same bit of land at different points in history.

Returning to the original point of contention (that is the period of time a state possessed the territory) I am pointing out that in actuality Germany has possessed the territory for far longer, via its predecessor state of Prussia. You can argue that fact is irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is that the monarch/head of state of the German Empire was the same monarch/head of state of the Kingdom of Prussia, meaning there is a direct line of succession there, which also means that the predecessor state, in this case isn't really a predecessor at all, just simply a former variant of the same state (ultimately the difference is the name with a slight change in governmental organization, with the same people in power).

So you would support Great Britain in laying their claim to Normandy? Because the King of England used to be the Duke of Normandy, and so logically, as Great Britain/United Kingdom is the successor state to England (or to steal your phrase, a new 'variant' of the same state), we should be able to renew that claim.

There's also the fact that the 'German Empire' is not the 'Germany' of today. Completely different institutions. Even if I recognised the right of the 'German Empire', that's no longer an entity which exists.

Again, you miss the point that you have changed the criteria of evaluation. While I agree with your general point of view on the matter, I am pointing out out a logical fallacy of your argument (and I suppose in the process playing the role of devils advocate)

Your original post was such that your basis for who has 'rightful' or 'legitimate' ownership over the territory now known as Kaliningrad has been that Russia possessed the territory for 68 years, and Germany 75 years, I pointed out that Germany had possessed the territory for far longer. Not once in your original argument did the condition of Germany's present lack of monarchy come into play, only that Germany had once possessed the territory for 75 years, to which I countered that the timeframe was in fact far longer (300-400 years ), rendering your own argument somewhat invalid on your basis of evaluation. You have since then expanded/shifted this criteria to further support your belief that Germany has no claim, which is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that your original argument (to which I was directly addressing when we started this chain of discussion) is still flawed.

 Smacks wrote:
This, incidentally, is what is most infuriating about the Argentinian claim to the Falkland Islands. Which show absolutely no regard as to the wishes of the inhabitants. In the 2013 sovereignty referendum the islanders voted overwhelmingly to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.

Yep, the Falklands is a classic example. The people there want to be part of the UK, and so as long as the UK wants them then the Argentinians can shut the hell up.

Another much less popular example is Tibet - the Han chinese living there now outnumber the Tibetans. The Chinese occupation and forced migration of Han chinese in to overwhelm the local population was a disgrace, but it is done now. Adding another injustice, either by forcing the Han chinese out or making them live under minority Tibetan rule is not a solution.

In fact 'overwhelmingly' is probably an understatement; the results were something like 99.8% in favour.

Perhaps with a 0.2% margin of error

The people who actually live in the Kaliningrad Oblast should have most (if not all) of the say regarding the sovereignty of their lands. It's really no one else's business. Especially not those whose only interest is in expanding their sphere of political influence.

Yep.

 sebster wrote:

Another much less popular example is Tibet - the Han chinese living there now outnumber the Tibetans. The Chinese occupation and forced migration of Han chinese in to overwhelm the local population was a disgrace, but it is done now. Adding another injustice, either by forcing the Han chinese out or making them live under minority Tibetan rule is not a solution.

What about the 3rd option of equal rule for the TIbetans and Han Chinese?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What about the 3rd option of equal rule for the TIbetans and Han Chinese?

I'm not really sure how equal rule works when there are more Han than Tibetans. I mean, if Tibetans want to seperate and return to their own independant Tibet and the Han do not, how do you provide equal rule that pleases everyone?

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What about the 3rd option of equal rule for the TIbetans and Han Chinese?

I'm not really sure how equal rule works when there are more Han than Tibetans. I mean, if Tibetans want to seperate and return to their own independant Tibet and the Han do not, how do you provide equal rule that pleases everyone?

Send in the US Marines and Army, we'll invade them and give them Freedom






Yeah, that was heavy sarcasm

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Will it happen though? No. Goes without saying the Russians would never concede any territory to the EU. More pertinently, Poland and Lithuania cut deals with Stalin to take German land in order to buy their loyalty to communism and in the case of Poland "compensation" for parts of what is now Belarus to be given to the USSR. You can say that they were compelled to do this; but they certainly never shied away from the benefits. The Germans don't want to rock the boat. Any claim or interest in regaining the Oblast would be opening a can of worms. Poland and Lithuania would feel nervous at any notion of land lost during WW2 being returned to Germany; because a fair chunk of their countries are comprised of such land. This is no doubt why both Lithuania and Poland have actively been pressing their own claims to the Oblast whilst the Germans have not. Frankly I view the Polish and Lithuanian position as cynical since they are safeguarding what Stalin gave them and realistically theres no reason to believe returning the Oblast to Germany would suddenly have the german government asking for parts of Poland. It ain't going to happen. I think it demonstrates very well how little trust there is and how much resentment there still is in Europe over the German Question and WW2.

My blood is boiling with rage now.
Of course you brits dont remember Yalta and how along with the americans gave away Poland along with the rest of eastern europe to stalin at the end of wwii. How about you read up on the history of eastern europe before talking about us being cynical.
And feth, the irony here is stunning. The people of scotland and ulster demand independence from the UK yet I dont see anything happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I appologise for the spelling, I have the displeasure of writing from a phone.

Daemonhammer wrote:
And feth, the irony here is stunning. The people of scotland and ulster demand independence from the UK yet I dont see anything happening.

That is just not true. Scotland had a referendum and is going through a process of devolution right now. And the people of N.Ireland who want independence are a minority. The majority have voted to remain part of the UK, and as we all know... they feel pretty strongly about it.

Northern Ireland (like Tibet) is an unfortunate situation because the original population was displaced, and the way it was done was indeed disgusting and reprehensible. However no one alive today had anything to do with it, and right or wrong, the people who grew up and live there now do have a right to exist. To be honest I think it's a bit sad when English, Irish and Scots people who have lived and worked side by side for hundreds of years, and fought through two world wars together, can't put their differences aside. It's not like the English ruling classes treated their own people much better historically.

 Smacks wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
And feth, the irony here is stunning. The people of scotland and ulster demand independence from the UK yet I dont see anything happening.

That is just not true. Scotland had a referendum and is going through a process of devolution right now. And the people of N.Ireland who want independence are a minority. The majority have voted to remain part of the UK, and as we all know... they feel pretty strongly about it.

Northern Ireland (like Tibet) is an unfortunate situation because the original population was displaced, and the way it was done was indeed disgusting and reprehensible. However no one alive today had anything to do with it, and right or wrong, the people who grew up and live there now do have a right to exist. To be honest I think it's a bit sad when English, Irish and Scots people who have lived and worked side by side for hundreds of years, and fought through two world wars together, can't put their differences aside. It's not like the English ruling classes treated their own people much better historically.

True except it was around 46 percent voted to leave the UK in Northern Ireland so not really a minority.

The result of the of the 1973 referendum was 98.9% in favour of union with the UK. Though the referendum was heavily boycotted by Catholics.

I think Catholics make up about 42% of the population, but that doesn't mean we can assume that they are all in favour of a united Ireland. Recent polls have indicated that about half of them would vote against a united Ireland in the current climate, and considering the recent economic situation in Ireland who could blame them?

I think that latest polls have show that it's more like 20% in favour of a united Ireland, 60% in favour of a union with the UK, and the rest undecided or perhaps in favour of ideas like Ulster independence. The 60% have a pretty clear majority there.

 Smacks wrote:
The result of the of the 1973 referendum was 98.9% in favour of union with the UK. Though the referendum was heavily boycotted by Catholics.

I think Catholics make up about 42% of the population, but that doesn't mean we can assume that they are all in favour of a united Ireland. Recent polls have indicated that about half of them would vote against a united Ireland in the current climate, and considering the recent economic situation in Ireland who could blame them?

I think that latest polls have show that it's more like 20% in favour of a united Ireland, 60% in favour of a union with the UK, and the rest undecided or perhaps in favour of ideas like Ulster independence. The 60% have a pretty clear majority there.

Yes well that was 40 years ago, there was one done in recent years with the results I mentioned.

Kaliningrad is about as German as Goulash and the only people who still call it East Prussia or Koenigsburg are historians or German Ultranationalists/Germanophiles.

No.

Daemonhammer wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
And feth, the irony here is stunning. The people of scotland and ulster demand independence from the UK yet I dont see anything happening.

That is just not true. Scotland had a referendum and is going through a process of devolution right now. And the people of N.Ireland who want independence are a minority. The majority have voted to remain part of the UK, and as we all know... they feel pretty strongly about it.

Northern Ireland (like Tibet) is an unfortunate situation because the original population was displaced, and the way it was done was indeed disgusting and reprehensible. However no one alive today had anything to do with it, and right or wrong, the people who grew up and live there now do have a right to exist. To be honest I think it's a bit sad when English, Irish and Scots people who have lived and worked side by side for hundreds of years, and fought through two world wars together, can't put their differences aside. It's not like the English ruling classes treated their own people much better historically.

True except it was around 46 percent voted to leave the UK in Northern Ireland so not really a minority.

Is 46 percent less than 54 percent? Yes? Then it's a minority. Words have meanings you know.

If you cannot post without being insulting towards vast swathes of people then it's better you don't post.


Thank you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
And feth, the irony here is stunning. The people of scotland and ulster demand independence from the UK yet I dont see anything happening.

That is just not true. Scotland had a referendum and is going through a process of devolution right now. And the people of N.Ireland who want independence are a minority. The majority have voted to remain part of the UK, and as we all know... they feel pretty strongly about it.

Northern Ireland (like Tibet) is an unfortunate situation because the original population was displaced, and the way it was done was indeed disgusting and reprehensible. However no one alive today had anything to do with it, and right or wrong, the people who grew up and live there now do have a right to exist. To be honest I think it's a bit sad when English, Irish and Scots people who have lived and worked side by side for hundreds of years, and fought through two world wars together, can't put their differences aside. It's not like the English ruling classes treated their own people much better historically.

True except it was around 46 percent voted to leave the UK in Northern Ireland so not really a minority.

Is 46 percent less than 54 percent? Yes? Then it's a minority. Words have meanings you know.

Words have meanings indeed, and so there is a difference between saying that only a minority want to leave the UK and that almost half of the population wants to leave the UK.

Except that more recent and not biased polls show that a mere 20% of North Ireland wants anything to do with South Ireland.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Words have meanings indeed, and so there is a difference between saying that only a minority want to leave the UK and that almost half of the population wants to leave the UK.

Less than half is, and always will be, a minority. Now, if you were saying there's a difference between a minority, and a significant minority (which is sort of what you're going for) then you'd have something to stand on.

Kain wrote:Except that more recent and not biased polls show that a mere 20% of North Ireland wants anything to do with South Ireland.

I find it hard to believe considering the recent history of Ulster. A source would be nice to see.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:

Words have meanings indeed, and so there is a difference between saying that only a minority want to leave the UK and that almost half of the population wants to leave the UK.

Less than half is, and always will be, a minority. Now, if you were saying there's a difference between a minority, and a significant minority (which is sort of what you're going for) then you'd have something to stand on.

Thats partialy what I was going for, placement of words in a sentence can change a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also no offense to our British friends here, but considering the core of the problem in NE is the conflict between the British and Irish I would expect your stance to be somewhat biased.

Regardless there were referendums done on both Ireland and there will be one in Scotland in September. None of these countries are being forced to stay. Whatever point you had regarding the irony of the situation is incorrect.

 purplefood wrote:
Regardless there were referendums done on both Ireland and there will be one in Scotland in September. None of these countries are being forced to stay. Whatever point you had regarding the irony of the situation is incorrect.

My original point was how the OP in his infinite wisdom portrayed us Polish and the Lithuanians as the bad guys for taking land from the Germans post WWII considering what fun things were going on in Ireland at the time
To add even more insult to this, he ignored how Britain (and USA) are largely responsible for the way borders look (the borders were organised during Yalta conference which we did not get to be a part off).

I suppose hipocricy would be a better term.

I expect someone will try to point out that it was to stop was with russia or to blame Stalin but please dont bother. I relaise that was part of the reason for what happened, but really it was a lot to do with the west not giving a feth about eastern europe at the time.

Daemonhammer wrote:
My original point was how the OP in his infinite wisdom portrayed us Polish and the Lithuanians as the bad guys for taking land from the Germans post WWII considering what fun things were going on in Ireland at the time
To add even more insult to this, he ignored how Britain (and USA) are largely responsible for the way borders look (the borders were organised during Yalta conference which we did not get to be a part off).

I suppose hipocricy would be a better term.

In fairness the OP didn't personally divide up anyone's borders, or persecute the Irish. I'm also flying a UK flag on here, but that doesn't mean I support, or am in any way affiliated with, the atrocities committed by the British empire. Also, just exclaiming "You too!" in a discussion doesn't in any way validate your own position. I don't believe the Polish and Lithuanians were the 'bad guys' but not because I believe England was.

 Smacks wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
My original point was how the OP in his infinite wisdom portrayed us Polish and the Lithuanians as the bad guys for taking land from the Germans post WWII considering what fun things were going on in Ireland at the time
To add even more insult to this, he ignored how Britain (and USA) are largely responsible for the way borders look (the borders were organised during Yalta conference which we did not get to be a part off).

I suppose hipocricy would be a better term.

In fairness the OP didn't personally divide up anyone's borders, or persecute the Irish. I'm also flying a UK flag on here, but that doesn't mean I support, or am in any way affiliated with, the atrocities committed by the British empire. Also, just exclaiming "You too!" in a discussion doesn't in any way validate your own position. I don't believe the Polish and Lithuanians were the 'bad guys' but not because I believe England was.

Someone always has to use the "he didnt do it personally" bomb in a historical debate. It serves no purpose.

Please explain how I shouted "you too!".

Daemonhammer wrote:
Someone always has to use the "he didnt do it personally" bomb in a historical debate. It serves no purpose.

Because you attacked him personally, calling him a hypocrite.

Please explain how I shouted "you too!".

"portrayed us Polish and the Lithuanians as the bad guys for taking land from the Germans post WWII considering what fun things were going on in Ireland at the time"

Your argument here is basically 'England were doing bad stuff to Ireland in the 1940s' therefore 'someone (of indeterminate origin) posting from the UK in 2014 can't criticize Poland'

 Smacks wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
Someone always has to use the "he didnt do it personally" bomb in a historical debate. It serves no purpose.

Because you attacked him personally, calling him a hypocrite.

Please explain how I shouted "you too!".

"portrayed us Polish and the Lithuanians as the bad guys for taking land from the Germans post WWII considering what fun things were going on in Ireland at the time"
Your argument here is basically 'England were doing bad stuff to Ireland in the 1940s' therefore 'someone (of indeterminate origin) posting from the UK in 2014 can't criticize Poland'

Okay look at it this way: this guy comes along, starts making a bunch of statements that are complete feth like these:

''[...]Poland and Lithuania cut deals with Stalin to take German land in order to buy their loyalty to communism''
''[...]Poland and Lithuania would feel nervous at any notion of land lost during WW2 being returned to Germany; because a fair chunk of their countries are comprised of such land''
''[...]This is no doubt why both Lithuania and Poland have actively been pressing their own claims to the Oblast.''
''[...]Frankly I view the Polish and Lithuanian position as cynical since they are safeguarding what Stalin gave them''

We lost massive amounts lands because of the Yalta conference, but thats not the point.

In his ignorance he believes we essentially took German land (this reasonong leading to the conclusion that we hold it against their will) which is a hipocritical statement considering what went on at the same time in Ireland for example.

Im not saying he cant criticise or hate Poland (because no matter my efforts he will do it anyway) but i hope you can see where im coming from.

Of course i could be wrong and this could be a big misunderstanding, but from my experience a lot of the British have a very low opinion about us Polish.

It is not hypocritical because we don't know the OPs views on Ireland. You are just assuming the because he is posting from the UK that his politics must be indistinguishable from that of England the country, which is ridiculous. Even if that were the case it wouldn't make any difference.

Hypothetically if Poland did broker a deal with Stalin, then that would just be a statement of fact. Whatever happened to be going on in Ireland is not going to make it any less of a fact. Proving that the OP is a hypocrite, or a cross-dresser, or any number of other things would also not make it any less of a fact. And is entirely irrelevant because this topic is about the Kaliningrad Oblast.