We didn't start WWI. But since we gave our support to Austro-Hungary, a chain reaction started... learn something about WWI, really you can't blame the Germans for having started WWI. In the beginning it was something between Austria and Serbia, but since those two had allies a chain reaction started.
The SU would have started the war either way, Stalin wouldn't have tolerated the status quo in Europe. We just anticipated the declaration of war by the SU. In the 20th century it isn't justified to annex territory, which belonged to the German heartlands. But the Allied were fine with this decision, since they thought to rot out German militarism with the destruction of Prussia, allthough Prussia stood for much more than that.
You can consult any statistics out there, communism and Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler! Even to the Russians themselves, Stalin is responsible for far more dead Russians or citizen of the SU than Hitler, and I'm not a supporter of Hitler.
Well then, maybe in your alternate world of "ifs" and "would have's" your argument "would" be valid. Fact is that Germany invaded the Soviet Union, not the other way around.
And after exterminating Poles for several years it's only fair that Germany gave up some of its land (most of which was originally Polish anyway).
As for Prussia, well consider it the smallest compensation the SU could have possibly asked for after Germany tried to anhialate Belarussian, Russian and Ukrainian people (among others).
Makes sence. But still, that does not justify Germany starting WW2 by attacking Poland in 1939 and USSR in 1941.
There is no evidence that such plans existed, not in 1930s-40s.The SU would have started the war either way, Stalin wouldn't have tolerated the status quo in Europe. We just anticipated the declaration of war by the SU.
In 20th century behavior of Germany wasn't justified in much bigger extent. Germany started the war, caused a lot of damage and lost. If anyone Germany should blame for loss of Prussia - its their own leadership, who was stupid enough to attack USSR in 1941.In the 20th century it isn't justified to annex territory, which belonged to the German heartlands. But the Allied were fine with this decision, since they thought to rot out German militarism with the destruction of Prussia, allthough Prussia stood for much more than that.
No, he is not. Unless, of chourse, you can provide some numbers from a credible source.You can consult any statistics out there, communism and Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler! Even to the Russians themselves, Stalin is responsible for far more dead Russians or citizen of the SU than Hitler, and I'm not a supporter of Hitler.
It's not an alterante world, you're just too tuinnel viewed to admit, that the SU would have also attacked Germany... only later
What are you talking about? Germans didn't exterminate the Poles, and don't play the innocent, Russians had their share on Poland and let's not forget the brutal suppression of whole Eastern Europe after WW2.
well we had to pay a lot more compensation than that, German civilians were slaughtered and raped in masses by the Soviets, German POWS were executed or had to work to death, Germany didn't only loose lots of its heartlands, it also was divided thanks to th SU, and last but not least Germany also had to pay monetary compensation after WW2...
It all depends on who was living there in 1939. If it was mostly German then yes the lands are German. The right to land belongs to its inhabitants and no one else. That being said, I don't believe Germany should revert its borders because it no longer has a German population there.
yes I agree, WWI didn't justify the attack on the SU in WWII and by no means the way of how we actualy fought at the east front can be justified.
It's not a question of evidence, it's a qestion of pure common sense. Do you really think that Stalin would have tolerated fascist Germany owning almost whole Europe? the fight between fascism and communism for supremacy was inevitable.
I never wanted to justify the behavior of Germany, one can't... but therefore if the SU was any better than Nazi Germany it shouldn't have adapted similiar mehtods.
I leave that to yourself to find out... there are plenty of sources. Even Khrushchev (Никита Сергеевич Хрущёв) knew, that Stalin was a criminal who killed masses of innocent Soviet population and he was the one to put an end to the Stalin cult (he must have had reasons for that, don't you think?)
1. The Germans did try to exterminate the Poles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_cr...t_ethnic_Poles
They also viewed them as sub-human.
2. Germany started WWII by invading Poland without justification. Combined with the above, there is no moral high ground for you.
3. Given your "hypothetical" situations, here is one of my own. Had Germany won the war, you can be sure as hell that they would have annexed or vassalized the conquered nations. This is merely the reverse of reality. You lost, therefore your spoils go to the victors.
Finally, if you can blame my ancestors for "stealing your land", I can blame yours for trying to exterminate my people since before Bismarck.
Edit: As for the SU being better than Germany, why should it be? An eye for an eye, and even that wasn't fulfilled entirely.
Stalin wasn't an idealist. He was okay to ally with US and UK, so he wouldn't start a war with Germany just because they were national-socialist.It's not a question of evidence, it's a qestion of pure common sense. Do you really think that Stalin would have tolerated fascist Germany owning almost whole Europe? the fight between fascism and communism for supremacy was inevitable.
SU didn't use same methods. Soviet union didn't mass kill or enslave Germans.I never wanted to justify the behavior of Germany, one can't... but therefore if the SU was any better than Nazi Germany it shouldn't have adapted similiar mehtods.
First of all, Khrushev was Stalin's opponent. Therefore, no wonder he would blackmail Stalin after his death. Therefore, Khrushev isn't more credible than US leasers or any other Stalin's opponents.I leave that to yourself to find out... there are plenty of sources. Even Khrushchev (Никита Сергеевич Хрущёв) knew, that Stalin was a criminal who killed masses of innocent Soviet population and he was the one to put an end to the Stalin cult (he must have had reasons for that, don't you think?)
We know, what to do with it now. We shall continue to own it and me is going to buy himself a nice countryhouse by the seaside there when I'm ready to retire from moscow babylon madness.
And my humble opinion is that it is noone else buisness what to do with these lands now and I'm not asking or willing for anybody's "justification" or "approval" on this matter.
Germany did start WW1. Austria-Hungary mobilised against Serbia and presented an ultimatum, Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary - but didn't attack. Germany then invaded France. This happened because the German mobilisation plan assumed a war against France and Russia, so it delivered forming armies directly to the French border to carry out the Schlieffen Plan.
For an illustration of the inflexibility of the mobilisation plans, see Wiki under July Crisis
On August 1, German discussions regarding declaring war on Russia were interrupted when at 4:23PM a telegram from the German Ambassador to Britain arrived with a planned British proposal to guarantee the neutrality of France and thus limit the war to one fought in the east. Despite opposition from the German military, Germany immediately accepted the proposal by telegrams at the ambassadorial and royal levels." In keeping with this decision, Kaiser Wilhelm II demanded his generals shift the mobilization to the east. Helmuth von Moltke (the younger), the German Chief of General Staff, told him that this was impossible, to which the Kaiser replied "Your uncle would have given me a different answer!" Instead, it was decided to mobilize as planned and cancel the planned invasion of Luxembourg. Once mobilization was complete the army would redeploy to the east.
Last edited by Juvenal; February 23, 2009 at 03:40 AM.
The Flavius writed everything I wanted except to remind our Russian Friends about Ribentrop-Molotov pact and Soviet Agression on Poland started on 17 IX 1939; and the fact that before 22 VI 1941 Soviet Union was close ally of III Reich (Finns and Romanians can say something about this too). Hitler cheated Stalin but lost the war so Vae Victis. The lands lost by Germany are just compensation.
Germans have no right to excuse nazi atrocities by comunists crimes becouse vast mayority of Lenin and Stalin victims were Russians and/or soviet subjects not Germans and Nazis murderdered many times more "Soviets" than vice versa. All this historical revisionism is appaling.
Any nation that loses a war or wars risks a loss of territory.
And ing about getting it back later on when you were on the belligerent side in the first place is a bit rude. That's their folly and the price they pay.
the posts are flip flopping between 2 wars. is the original poll about the territories lost after ww1 or ww2?
Er, no. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on the 28th of July, Germany didn't declare war on Russia untill 1 august and France untill the 3rd of August and didn't start it's invasion untill then. Austria-Hungary sent gunships that bombarded Belgrade on the 29th. So no, the war was started by Austro-Hungary.
They weren't any more belligerent than any other of the major nations in starting WWI. Honestly, pinning WWI on the Germans is stupid. The war started because of a huge number of reasons, mainly imperialism. The Russian-Austrian imperialism in the Balcan; German-French imperialism in Africa; German-British competion regarding the world market and navies, etc, etc.Any nation that loses a war or wars risks a loss of territory.
And ing about getting it back later on when you were on the belligerent side in the first place is a bit rude. That's their folly and the price they pay.
Last edited by Dr. Croccer; February 23, 2009 at 05:07 AM.
Originally Posted by A.J.P. TaylorOriginally Posted by Miel Cools
Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.
Originally Posted by Jörg FriedrichOriginally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
Jajem ssoref is m'n korewE goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtompWer niks is, hot kawsones
I think any rational person would say the spark that set off WWI was between the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Likewise, any rational person realizes that Stalin was as much of a threat to the Russian people as any foreign dictator. Unfortunately, rational thinking is too often put aside when discussing the wars of the twentieth century.
"To the victors go the spoils." This saying isn't "to the victors, who were aggressed," or "to the victors, who had a politically and morally legitimate reason to go to war." Germany lost WWII (albeit eventually), and Germany lost territory. Because there is neither an outcry in the modern German state for the return of their former territories, nor is there demands for a plebisite in these former territories, the issue is essentially dead.
Strictly speaking, they indeed stole it. The population of a certain region should be entitled to choose which nation they belong to, that is an act of self-determination. There is no right for territorial compensation after a war.
However, as we all know, this argument is moot. It has always been "vae victis". Addtionally, the result of such a referendum would depend on its scale, i.e. who is asked, which is impossible to determine correctly. Think of ex-Yugoslavia: The minority of Kosovo-Albanians did not want to live under Serbian rule. Now after the secession, we have a minority of Kosovo-Serbians who do not want to live under Albanian rule...
To me, the easiest thing to do would be to forget this crap about borders and who took what from whom decades and centuries ago. Just accept the borders as they are, and stop asking stupid questions like this poll does.
"The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it reveals in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor blighter who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own."-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Last edited by boofhead; February 23, 2009 at 07:41 AM.
However, there was no formal right for self-determination until the establishment of the United Nations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think Wilson's League of Nations had any formal decree on the subject.
Especially when there's no real issue among the people.To me, the easiest thing to do would be to forget this crap about borders and who took what from whom decades and centuries ago. Just accept the borders as they are, and stop asking stupid questions like this poll does.