Search:

Type: Posts; User: CiviC; Keyword(s):

Search: Search took 0.10 seconds.

  1. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    Actually, without Western Ukraine, most of it formerly part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Austrian Galicia/Interbellum Polish Republic it wouldn't be a Nationalistic Ukraine to fight Russia. In a...
  2. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    Mangalore, a very well balanced point of view. However my coments were directed to other Germans that still dispute the territorial loses for Germany after WWI. As for German war reparations, imposed...
  3. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    Considering the hysteria, the German hysteria after WWI for loosing VERY LIGHTELY some territories, that weren't after all undisputable German, I'm thinking of Northern Schleswig, Poznan and even the...
  4. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    Curzon line was pretty fair, from a historical and demographical point of view, it's a shame Poland lost however Lvov, a great Polish cultural center.

    From a value point of view Pomerania, Silesia...
  5. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    Basically Poland's borders were reset to the ones of the first Polish state, a milennium ago

    http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/poland9801018.gif
  6. Re: Did the post WW2 border changes benefit Poland in the long run?

    What's for sure, Poland is now a more consistent country, from a geographical, ethnic-demographic point of view then she was in 1939. Of course this was achieved with the sacrifice of tens of...
  7. Replies
    270
    Views
    35,912

    Re: When did the Roman Empire become a Greek Empire?

    Roman Empire was always half Greek, half Latin, in language and culture. In fact half Greek Hellenistic (meaning the blending of Classic Greek culture with Oriental cultures). The Latin part was also...
  8. Re: Romanians are more Dacian or Roman or both!

    I gave you two specifically examples when Ottomans had as declared objective to instaure direct rule/pashalik in Romanian Principalities. In the last example, as a reaction to Michael the Brave...
  9. Re: Romanians are more Dacian or Roman or both!

    There are at least two documented moments when Ottomans tried effectively to make Wallachia and then Wallachia and Moldavia as pashaliks and rule them directly.

    The first is in 1522 when Pasha of...
  10. Replies
    73
    Views
    13,972

    Re: Romanians are more Dacian or Roman or both!

    Dear Edlfred now you seem to give up on the Slav-Turks, but you make now a distinction between Dacians and Getae, finding for Getae another fantastic origin, with origins in ... Anatolia. Your bias...
  11. Replies
    73
    Views
    13,972

    Re: Romanians are more Dacian or Roman or both!

    Goths/Visigoths/Ostrogoths, Vandals, Gepids passed and temorarily settled Romania and Balkans long before Slavs. I gave you this article you continue to ignore >

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha...
  12. Replies
    73
    Views
    13,972

    Re: Romanians are more Dacian or Roman or both!

    It is an endonym, 2000 years old, since Roman times, it comes from "ROMANUS" evolving in Romanian into "RUMĀN/ROMĀN", it is atested as early as XVth century by Italian travelers telling that the...
  13. Thread: Anschluss

    by CiviC
    Replies
    57
    Views
    3,763

    Re: Anschluss

    Indeed, Italy was disposed to guarantee Austrian independence back then, obviously Italians weren't that happy to see Germany on their doorsteps.
Results 1 to 13 of 15