Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Patroklos]

20/1 Serb won't respond.

looks like sme people made out like bandits on this one. We will count the drival above as "won't repy" as it equates to as much.

5/1 he will chop said quote to say what he wants and after prodding on the reality of the author’s message will start swearing and name-calling and disappear from the forum for a few days until he thinks people forgot what a fool he is.

we will pay out 50% on this one, as I don't want to short change anyone because of my lack of options.

I really hope Serb uses some time during his days off/retreat to go to a library/comic store to dig up his normal bs. We will be suprised to learn the Soviets didn't kill anyone. The gulags were actually run by White Russian remnants who were suported by the West.

But I really do what Serb to reply as I am looking forward to...

Whatever the case Serb, don't stop. While your clinical insanity is disturbing and deserving of pity, like a train wreck, it is also facinating. It also makes anyone posting in the same thread as you seem 20 IQ points more intelligent.

[Heresson]

Russia has never posed an aggressive threat to Europe

Hm. You mean Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Germany, Czechia and Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Monte Negro, Bosnia and Hercegowina, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbeyjan, Byelarus, Ukraine and those poor lands still under Russian control, they aren't located in Europe?

Lithuanian basketball is having more in common I think with that Lithuanians are said to be the highest nation in the world than with Soviet school.

Polish government escaped to Romania at Sep. 17. Only after that at the same day (Sept. 17) Soviet troops entered Western Ukrain and Western Beylorussia. That's what I was talking about. When Soviets entered- your government was already gone, and Poland was already a toast.

Polish gouverment left territory of Poland, but it did not cease to exist. And that a nation is defenceless, it doesn't mean You can freely attack it. It's what the barbarians do. But wait...
Anyway, Soviets attacked that late only because they weren't ready later, and were still afraid. As vultures, they attacked only when their pray was halfly dead.

The same with Franco-German and British-German agreements. They claim that whole Southern Europe should be in sphere of influence of Germany and that France had no interests in Southern Europe. The only difference that Soviets actually used the situation to benefit something for themselves, while Brits and French just let Hitler do everything he wanted.

First of all, I'm not sure if the things You mentioned really took place, but even if so, I do not recall France of Britain attacking some state hand to hand with Hitler

Oh yeah, sure. When Poland playing games with nazi and participate in division of Czechoslovakia on pair with Hitler- it's pretty complicated. But when Soviets sign a tactical treaty with Hitler to return their lands from their No1 enemy- Poland, it's quite simple- Soviets are f*ckers.

Of course. Poland made a mistake, but it can not be compared. Polish move wasn't intedned to destroy Czechoslovakia, as Soviet one. It was several tiny changes in the boarder, far from what poland demanded earlier, and Soviet Union took half of the state. moreover, there was no previous agreement
between Poland and Germany, unlike Soviet case.

Blaim Floyd and American education system then.

It was You who misinterpretated his post...
I blame Russian educational system

And you think Soviets as victors of this war, had no right demand anything from defeated agressors?
Grow-up.

YES. If China was at war against India, and one side won, it doesn't mean any territorial changes had to be done. Giving Krolewiec to Russia was like giving Hamburg to USA for their war effort
Well, wasn't occupation of large part of occupied country, pillaging of all that Red Army passed through,
thousands rapes on German and Polish women... wasn't it all enough?

As for 1939, we didn't conquered Western Ukraine and Western Beylorussia, we re-conquered it. Those lands belonged to Ukraine and Beylorussia and were populated mostly by Ukranians and Beylorussians.

These lands never belonged to Ukraine or Byelorus, as these countries never existed till ww1 (Ukraine is a complicated matter). There was no border between Poland and these to or USSR before ww2, there was no USSR before ww2. How these lands could belong to it?
Not all of these lands had ukrainian or Byelorusian majority, especially that You took the lands between Vistula and Bug at first too, up to Warsaw. Hardly liberating Byelorus and Ukraine. Not to mention that Ukrainians of these regions never asked USSR for liberation, they kind of didn't like USSR that destroyed their state, murdered millions of their fellows and persecuted their national movement.

To claim Konigsberg from Germany, you at least had to fight for this city/ It's our soldiers who died in battle for this city, not yours. When this city-fortress was full of nazi soldiers where have you been? Were where you glorious Polish armies? Why Soviets had to fight for it and lost thousans of lives of their soldiers? If you needed it so badly, you had to fight for it. You didn't fight for it. You had no right to demand it. Simple as that, case is closed.

Your thinkiong is exceptionally primitive here. We took it - we keep it. Yet, even when it comes to that, Polish soldiers, again I say, were fighting both at the west and in the east, liberating parts of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. We do not claim anything of it.

Russia has not a single territorial calim towards any of its neighbours.

Except for Byelorus (entire), Ukraine (Crimea), Georgia (Abkhasia) etc
Anyway, You don't have it, because You've already taken all that You could earlier.

Poor, innocent Poland, who use every opportunity to grab new land.

MY GOD. READ YOUR POSTS AND THJINK IF IT'S NOT YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS RUSSIA

1) There was a civil war in Russia.

What was it?

2) Poland used this opportunity and invaded Soviets.

It was defending itself against Soviet plans of global revolution and neo-imperialism of Moscow

3) In 20's and 30's Poland considered as enemy No1 for USSR.

Not at all. We had good relations until Litwinow was dismissed and USSR got closer to Germany

And Soviet Union had all reasons to return lands that Poland captured in 1921. And they reuturned those lands in 1939.

What were those reasons? And You can't say "return", they never belonged to it.

You wouldn't have been born, had Russians didn't defeat Germans. Whole your glorious army was crashed within month. And you tell me about ignorance and idiotism?
F*cking whining suckers.

Russian culture...
But I'll reply. Soviets lost many times a size of Poland in shorter time despite its much bigger forces, abilities, and strategic location.

Good, and how many Polish armies participated in battle of Konigsberg to claim it for Poland? How much Werhmacht armies were defeated by Poilsh forces. Remind me a Polish-German battle which was a turning point of WW2. Explain why Poland should benefit from defeat of Germany more than Russia.

Again, You don't have to win the land by your own hands. This way, there should be no France! Can't You understand that? Poland had, comparatively, very big input in ww2 effort. Also, unlike Russians, there were no Poles on German side. And anyway, it was SOVIET battle, not Russian. Why shouldn't Kaliningrad be Kazakh?

Moron. Had he died during battle of Konigsberg, I wouldn't type there now. He was heavily injured there.

why? Couldn't he have children before ww2?

Ok, I see now. You seems to believe that mighty Polish army defeated nazism and saved humanity.
Polish contribution to defeat of Hitler's hordes and Polish war effort is NOWHERE NEAR than Soviet contribution and Soviet war effort. There is no a single reason why you should benefit from defeat of Germany more than country which played DECISIVE role in victory over nazism.

OF COURSE Soviets played an important role. But at the start of the war, Soviets were Germany's allies. Also, we did not benefit. We lost territory. that's the point.

So, how about my suggestion, that you didn't comment? If you think that Konigsberg should be Polish, because it was (or suppose to be Polish) in 17 century, then Poland should be Russian, because it was part of Russian Empire. You still do not understand that you've posted pure BS?

There's a big difference. Krolewiec at this time actually wished itself to be a part of Poland. Poland didn't wish to be part of Russia. Koenigsberg was gained by Poland in completely different way than Poland by Russia

It's accurate number from the historical research done after collapse of SU. USSR lost 26,6 millions of people in this war. If you already read Russian, go there (actually, after such comments, I would send you to another place, but I doubt you'll understand what "poshel na hui" means)
educate yourself:

It was yOu who wrote Russian.

Had all Russia was under occupation, you would never exist Heresson. You have to pray all you Catholic idols, that Russia exist and always save the world from reign of crazy conquerers who try to capture the planet.

Many of them were ruling of Moscow.
And your post was irrelevant to what I've written

It's You who do not understand USSR was a single country. If it was, how could it speak in the name of Ukrainians or Byelorussians? And if so, why was Kaliningrad given to Russian republic?

And it would have been 0.0 millions of people, had Soviets didn't destroy nazis and saved you from complete extermination as nation.

Perhaps, if Soviets didn't help Germans start the war

26.6 millions of Russians died in this war and some of them were killed by Poles, I'm sure.

Was Russia under Polish occupation? Were Russians transported in inhumanly conditions into inner Poland? Or were Russian officers being mass killed by Polish order?

Oh, Soviet liberation of ANY country, not only Romania, was a loot feast.

And still I do not understand how can You claim yourself a communist. You're a Russian neo-nazi stalinist!

[Patroklos]

Exactly how did Germany, France and England have an agreement to spilt up Southern Europe when Italy was there?

Perhaps Germany and Italy had and agreement to do so, but the France and England thing is out of Serbs comic book. But I doubt Germany even had that, as Hitler was extremely pissed off when he found out Italy had invaded the Balkans'as and Greece because he knew they would have to bail them out. Distracted them from the greater war effort.

England had an agreement with Greece for protection (nothing formal) and it also maintained its bases on Malta and Crete. nothing to do with Germany.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Heresson
And that a nation is defenceless, it doesn't mean You can freely attack it. It's what the barbarians do. But wait...
Anyway, Soviets attacked that late only because they weren't ready later, and were still afraid. As vultures, they attacked only when their pray was halfly dead.
<...>
Polish move wasn't intedned to destroy Czechoslovakia, as Soviet one. It was several tiny changes in the boarder, far from what poland demanded earlier,

Vultures/barbarians, huh? Oooh these Russians - they were not at all like saintly Poland, a model pre WW2-European country, which never had any territorial aspirations towards their neighbours.

Except maybe this one time when Poland attacked Soviet Russia during the civil war. This does not qualify as "attacking when their pray was halfly dead" at all.

And grabbing Vilnius from Lithuania does not qualify either. It was just restoring Poland historical borders, right? Of course, Vilnius was never a part of Poland - but it was a part of Poland-Lithuania, so I'm sure that annexing Vilnius was just a manifestation of brotherly love towards Lithuania on Poland's part. And Lithuania of course was simply not advanced enough to realize that it was for their own good and even broke diplomatic relationships. Poland was so deeply upset about this lack of apprehension, that in March, 1938 it issued one of the most bizarre ultimatums of the inter-war period to Lithuania, threatening an invasion if diplomatic contact were not restored.

Meddling in Czechoslovakia does not qualify, either. When Chechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, Poland, this land of the brave, just moved in and grabbed what she could in a most civilized manner and in a spirit of neighbourly love, I'm sure. After all it was "far from what poland demanded earlier" - I mean, Poland still does not stretch from Elbe to Volga. Oooh historic injustice.

Really, Poland was such a noble, saintly country, that it is absolutely unclear what motivated Lloyd George to say after 4th partioning on Poland (or was it fifth? who can count, anyway) that "Poland got what she deserved".

there was no USSR before ww2.
<...>
I blame Russian educational system

It looks like Polish education system could use some improvement, too

[Ned]

Is there any truth to the statement earlier in this thread that Hitler was "surprised" when Stalin invaded eastern Poland?

Also, didn't the German-USSR nonaggression pact essentially agree that the USSR could "assume control of" the Baltic states? From October 1939 until the German invasion of 1941, the Soviets cooperated in resettlement of German Balts to Reich territory.

It seems to me that if Hitler had discussed granting Stalin a free hand in the Baltic states, he would have also discussed the fate of eastern Poland for obvious reasons.

[ErikM]

Judge for yourself:
Text of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
from Modern History SourceBook.

[Ned]

ErikM, thanks. It does appear that they agreed to the division of Poland the way it did in fact unfold.

Hitler's suprise, if any, was feigned.

[Ned]

Does anyone know whether Britain's calculus in declaring war on Germany factored in the possibility that the invasion of Poland was a joint German-USSR affair?

[Patroklos]

I am nit sure, but I doubt that the either France of England had no clue of what the Non-Agression pact enatiled.

I am sure they simply figured they could not fight two equal evils (holocaust and Soviets most egregious atrocities hadn't happened yet) at the same time and Germany was the more threatening militarly.

[Ned]

Pat, I am also sure that the mistreatment of the Jews had nothing to do with England's and France's declaration of war. It is also obvious that taking on both Germany and the USSR was folly. But it did show just how hypocritical was the British and French declaration of war. They had no concern, true concern, of abiding by their treaty obligations to defend Poland. They were simply eager to declare war on Germany because the Versailles Treaty was their creature and their failure to defend that treaty meant they were no longer to be respected.

In truth, WWII was a continuation of WWI and the cause of WWII was not the sole fault of Germany.

[Patroklos]

That is exactly what I was saying Ned, that the Jewsish atrocities had not reached "critical" levels to inspire outrage politically, and nobody cared what the Soviets did to themselves.

So at the time in the eyes of the West the two were equal abominations. Germany was just mor threatening to them.

[Patroklos]

In truth, WWII was a continuation of WWI and the cause of WWII was not the sole fault of Germany.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know whether Britain's calculus in declaring war on Germany factored in the possibility that the invasion of Poland was a joint German-USSR affair?

It was not unexpected for the Brits. Here is what Churchill writes in his memoirs "Second World War" [note: I don't have the English text handy, so I'll retranslate from Russian - hopefully it won't sound too awful ]

- on the value of Polish guarantees:
"British government had to think about the practical value of guarantees given to Poland and Romania. None of them had any military significance without the common agreement with Russia. "

"[we called upon Poland] to retract their objections and to agree upon full Russian participation in our alliance... There is absolutely no possibility to hold the Eastern front against Nazi agression without Russia's active participation"

- on Poland:
"It was clear that Poland and Russia had centuries-long history of unresolved political and strategic problems. Their last major conflict was a battle for Warsaw in 1919, when bolshevick armies that attacked Poland were first turned back by Pilsudski with assistance from the Britiish mission headed by Lord d'Abernon, and later pursued in a bloodthirsty revenge. [Churchill is not entirely accurate here, but Ok - his attitude is more important for above discussion]. All these years Poland was at the forefront of anti-Bolshevism. With her left hand, she supported anti-Soviet Baltic states. At the same time, with her right hand she helped to rob Chechoslovakia in Munchen. Soviets were sure that
Poland hates them and also confident that they would not be able to withstand German agression... In these circumstances, perspectives were far from brilliant"

On M-R pact:
"In Soviet defense, it must be said it was vitally important to Soviet Union to move [western borders] as far westward as possible... Russians were still smarting up after their military disaster in 1914 when they commited to an attack on Germans before finishing mobilization. And now their borders were located much farther to the East than during the Great war. By force or by treachery, they simply had to occupy Baltic states and parts of Poland before facing new Geman attack. Their policy was shrewd and cunning, but also highly realistic"

After Soviet annexation of Eastern Poland:
"I was still confident that Soviets would be moved to our side by the force of events... In my memo of September 25, I mentioned:

Although Russians broken their treaty with Poland, we should recall that Marshall Voroshilov's demand, according to which Russian armies - if they were to be Polish allies as suggested - were to be stationed in Vilnius and Lvov, was well-warranted. This proposal was denied by Poland. In the light of present events Polish arguments to the contrary, while natural, cannot be considered satisfactory. Now as the enemy of Poland Russia has occupied the same positions as she would take as an ally-to-be. The actual difference to the outcome, thus, is not as large as it appears at the first sight" [what a beautiful piece of realpolitik! - ErikM]

On October 1, 1939 radio speech:
"Russia follows a shrewd policy of defending her own interests. We would prefer if Russian armies were taken their present positions as Polish friends and allies, not as agressors. But in order to protect Russia from the growing Nazi threat, it is necessary that Russian troops should be on their present positions...

I cannot predict how events in Russia will unfold in the future. It is a puzzle, but we have a key to such a puzzle. They are Russian national interests. Based on security considerations, Russia cannot allow German presence on the beaches of Black and Baltic sea, German occupation of Balkans and conquest of slavic nations in South-Eastern Europe"

On Soviet conquest of Baltic states:
"Russia's next step was concluding 'mutual assistance pacts' with Estland, Lithuania, and Latvia. These Baltic states were the most ardent anti-communist countries in Europe. After getting rid of Soviet government during Russian civil war in 1918-1920 these nations, with ruthlessness common to revolutions in these regions, created societies which seemed to be based upon hostility to communism and Russia... Germans eagerly sacrificed these countries during their deal with Russians"

Taken from vol. I, "The Gathering Storm", ch.I, part 20-21; ch. II, part 1, 3, 6.

Originally posted by Patroclos
I am sure they simply figured they could not fight two equal evils (holocaust and Soviets most egregious atrocities hadn't happened yet) at the same time and Germany was the more threatening militarly.

Could not fight both at the sime time, huh?

"We do not ask favors from Soviet Russia. The time is not right to ask favors from other countries. However, now Soviets offer us more profitable conditions [for a mutual alliance] then those that our government seeks... I ask Her Majesty's government to realize some unpleasant truths: without active Eastern front it is impossible to successfully defend our interests in the West, and without Russia there cannot be any Eastern front..."
[speech to the Commons on May 19, 1939]

Just read the book Churchill spent as much effort (if not more) trying to rally Soviets to their cause as to bring USA into the conflict. The argument that somehow England/France could fight both Germans and Russians at the same time is, honestly, preposterous. They could not fight Germany alone without Soviet help.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ErikM
Churchill spent as much effort (if not more) trying to rally Soviets to their cause as to bring USA into the conflict. The argument that somehow England/France could fight both Germans and Russians at the same time is, honestly, preposterous. They could not fight Germany alone without Soviet help.

Winston Churchill clearly was correct is early assessment that they needed the USSR active in East in order to successfully defended the West. But it appears that any deal that the Brits could have made with the Russians was squelched by the Poles themselves. The Russians made their own deal with the Nazis precisely in order to invade Poland, among other things.

What is a puzzle therefore is why Britain and France declared war on Germany when it appeared that the Soviet Union was virtually allied with Nazi Germany as opposed to being an active hostilities against it. According to Winston Churchill himself, Britain could not successfully defend the West without the Soviets involved. A declaration of war in September of 1939 was almost a foolhardy risk because it could have only succeeded by bringing both the Russians and the Americans in on the British side before they were defeated. That the Brits ultimately prevailed, in truth, was a miracle because it was Hitler who brought the USSR and America into the war all by himself.

[notyoueither]

Chriminey, you people could get the balls of wool mixed up at a knitting meet.

1. Churchill was not directing policy in the UK in 1939. In fact, he was quite a lonely figure at the time. It took the shocks of war and the realisation that he had been right all along to rehabilitate him, and then thrust the leadership upon him when his predecessors proved to be less than up to the task.

2. The UK, France, and the Commonwealth declared war on Germany before the Soviet Union got involved. At the time conventional wisdom had it that the French Army could make short work of any and all comers. It was not until some days later that evidence of the Nazi-Soviet pact became evident, and it was not for another 8 months that widely placed faith in the French Army was shown to be misplaced.