If Hitler had died in the summer of 1939 how would he be remembered?

[Serb]

Fine. Then sheer numbers were clearly on UK+France+USSR+Czechoslovakia+Poland, not on German's side. And strategic position too. Hitler had no troops to protect both French and Czech border in case of attack vs. Poland (where he would have faced Polish and Soviet troops, not Polish alone) or to protect Polish and French border in case attack vs. Czechoslovakia or Polish and Czech border in case of attack vs. France.
He would have never started a war in such situation. There would be no WW2 at all.

[TheStinger]

The key here is the French, they had the numbers but to the will or the strategic outlook to attack anyone, there whole militray was set up for a defensive war, without French co operation the UK couldn't hope to challenge Germany in a land war.

The other thing is the UK didn't trust the SU at all

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
USSR only took Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine regions when it was clear Poland is going to fall anyway, and since Hitler wanted to take these regions as well.
Happy now?

1) Poland took 1/200 of Tchechoslovakia. USRR took 2/5 or so of Poland.
2) Polish gains didn't threaten existance of Tchechoslovakia, USSR gains did threaten existance of Poland.
3) Poland's action wasn't result of earlier deal with Hitler
4) Hitler would take Sudety anyway, while Hitler only became sure he can take Poland when he signed alliance with USSR.
5)Poland didn't took any areas with czech majority, USSR did take areas with polish majority.
6)Tchechoslovakia agreed on the cession, there was no fighting. Also, no extermination, no ethnical cleansing.

Soviet demands were extremly limited, taking only the things which was taken by Poland by force in 1921.

Lands up till Vistula, up till Warsaw, 2/5 or so of Poland - these are limited demands?

Who said you would stay neutral? The right of passage was needed in only one case - if Germany attacks Czechoslovakia over Suddets. That automatically means war vs. Czechoslovakia, USSR, UK, France and Poland. If UK and France confirmed its obligations like USSR did, Hitler would have never dared to attack.

I'm not sure, but I believe that France had obligations towards Cz-S, UK did not.

That was a primary goal. The secondary goal was to return what you have stolen from us.

You keep saying stolen. But I remind You Soviets cancelled partages of Poland. The same You could say that Czechs have stolen Sudetenland from Germany after ww1

Well, in this case your German sucks completely, mate.
This text

should be read as follows:
In case of territorial-political changes in the territory of polish state, the spheres of interest (spheres of influence) of Germany and USSR will be defined by the line Flüsse Pissa, Narew, Weichsel and San rivers.

Not a single word about state borders.

No, not a single word about agression, not a single war about borders. Do You know what euphemism is, Serb?
Or do You believe it's coincidence Germany attacked Poland right after this pact and German-Soviet border ran along the borders of "spheres of influence"?

Sure thing Stalin was interested in war between Germany and UK&France. It would give him time to prepare for war.

So, if Stalin wants UK-G war, it's good. If UK wants USSR-G war, it's evil

Pure bullsh!t. Not even worth a comment. Un****ing believable bullsh!t. Damn.

What do You disagree with? Soviets DID declare partages null and void. And if so, why couldn't Poland demand being re-established in historical borders, just like Czech state? In fact, Poland was more timid, because Czechs took all their historical lands, and Poland not.

What historical shape? Poland size varied all the time depending on its successes/failures in agression against its neighbours. You wanted all territories from Moscow to the Black sea? FY then.

Isn't it clear? If partages of Poland were cancelled, Poland should return in the shape directly from before I partage.

Why the **** we should have? And to whom we should give it? Let me guess... to Poland, right?

These lands were relatively lately acquired by Russia, were in fact its colonies, and should be set free, shouldn't they. It's incredible Serb fights for teh freedom of nations, but except for the nations of Russia.

Because I hate the idea of Saras being born in Poland.

Saras is most likely part of lithuanian influx into this territory after ww2... So he'd be borned in Kowno/Kaunas or wherever.

'cause it's Belorussian land.

'cause it's Ukranian land.

What makes it belorusian / ukrainian?
Belarus and Ukraine never existed as a state. That's one. If You count Ruthenia, they have historical rights, but so does Poland. If You count ethnicity, Podolia, Lwow, Brzesc, Grodno region etc should go to Poland. "ukrainian land"? What does it mean? It doesn't have any information in it.

Ukraine - we share the history with them.

So does Poland.

Estonia - don't make me laugh. Such country as Estonia never existed prior to collapse of the Russian Empire.

True, but does it mean it shouldn't exist?

And you are a perfect example of such attitude. Because it's a Polish tradition. Damn you guys come even further, in 30's you demanded (**** Poland DEMANDED!!!) colonies! Tell me, WTF you forgot in Brasil? And WhyTF Poland should have been granted colonies in South America?
Sometimes (well, most of the time actually) Poles are absolutely crazy in their greed.

it is all said by a frenzied nationalist of the biggest state in the world...
Brazil? Only Parana, and it was not official polish stance.

Poland didn't demand anything that didn't belong to it for a couple centuries and had large polish population. Claim to Wolyn and Stanislawowskie may be contested, because Poles were relatively small population there, and I do not deny that.

Of course. Because that was right. Who the hell told you that change of the political system in the country means its desintegration? Provisional government replaced Tzar, Bolsheviks replaced provisional government, but why the **** state borders should change because of that?

Because
1) Soviets cancelled partages of Poland
2) Soviets declared their support for independance of Poland.
This had to mean border changes.

And that was right. Why it should have been otherwise?

because these were not ethnical or historical borders of nations.

And IT IS RIGHT. Because it was OUR LAND.

Ours? That is Russian? Yes, indeed, Russia has right to everything it's ever acquired.
Serb, do You support independance of Algeria from France? Or balkan nations from Turks?

Bullsh!t.

YOU ATTACKED THE USSR, not otherwise.
And I heard your crap about "necessity of pre-emptive attack vs. USSR" a thousand times. So don't repat that lying BS once again.

Please refer to my point. If SU didn't have intent on spreading world revolution, why did it establish communist gouverment of Poland in Bialystok?

Because Czechoslovakia didn't backstab Germany to gain these territories after a victory in a war of agression.
1939 we did to you EXACTLY the same what you've done to us in 1920. We just returned what you have stolen from us earlier. What goes around comes around. You clearly deserved that. Case is closed.

We did what? Did Poland divide SU in half with Japan or China?
Czechoslovakia didn't backstab Germany, because it didn't have to - Germany and Austria left Sudetenland for free after ww1. If they had to, they would probably do it, like it did to Poland in 1919 or like Lithuania did to Memel region.

Again, Poland, after cancelation of partages of Poland by Soviets, had full right to these lands.

p.s. I won't argue with you anymore, because it's pointless and very time-consuming.

[Heresson]

btw, You carefully missed all the more detailed questions, because You'd have to agree with me... please refer to my points.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb
On the other hand, in 1939 Brits valued Polish military capiblities higher than Soviet.

Any where is your evidence that that assessment was wrong.

[chequita guevara]

The Soviets were right in 1939.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Any where is your evidence that that assessment was wrong.

Germans crushed Poland within weeks, then lost to Soviets. That's my evidence.

[chequita guevara]

It took four years for the Soviets to beat the Nazis, and let's face it, the Nazis helped. In the end, I think the Soviets would have won, but it would have taken them longer if the Nazis hadn't screwed up and the Allies hadn't helped.

[Serb]

Sure. But still we won, Poland lost. So British we deeply wrong wrt Soviet military strength.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe, but Poland beat you in 1920 (sure, after a dozen other countries had invaded and six Tsarist armies had ravaged the country) and you lost in Spain.

Course, if it weren't for Stalin trying to win glory for himself by trying to take Lvov instead of following orders, Poland might well have fallen in 1920 and we'd be living in a Socialist planet today.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
btw, You carefully missed all the more detailed questions, because You'd have to agree with me... please refer to my points.

Have you seen the size of your post? I can't reffer to all your blah-blah-blahs.
The conversation is over, because the conversation of two fanatics is pointless.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Maybe, but Poland beat you in 1920 (sure, after a dozen other countries had invaded and six Tsarist armies had ravaged the country) and you lost in Spain.

We? It's more like Spanish lost in Spain. Though it wasn't a military defeat, more like betrayal.

Course, if it weren't for Stalin trying to win glory for himself by trying to take Lvov instead of following orders, Poland might well have fallen in 1920 and we'd be living in a Socialist planet today.

Stalin?
Poland was a Tukhachevsky ****-up.

[chequita guevara]

Tukhachevsky called for Stalin to bring his army up to Warsaw. His failure to do so allowed Pilsudski to beat the Soviets.

And yes, there was a betrayal in Spain, by the Soviets.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb

Germans crushed Poland within weeks, then lost to Soviets. That's my evidence.

In 1939, the Russians were defeated by Finland, Given the complete lack of tactical knowledge of their forces thre is little to suggest that they would have fared much better against the Poles.

The germans had overwhelming numbers and the Poles mistakenly based their stratergy on the fact that the UK and France would help.

They certainly would have held out for longer if the SU hadn't waded in.

When Germany invaded the SU they did not have overwelming superoirity of number and to start off with completley destroyed the Russkies, It was geography and numbers that saved the SU not their military capablity.

By 1943 they had changed this, but we are talking about 1939( a time when Stalin in his Wisdom was just finishing his extermination of the officer corps)

[TheStinger]

Oh and here is an example of the famed SU military being stuffed by a small number of underequipped Poles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Szack