Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
(Yes, irrelevant is really my favorite word :D)
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
Guess what, I do think there is a problem with Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I do have a problem with 'the winner has the benefits', it is unfair (from the non-initiation of violence POV).
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
Guess what, I do think there is a problem with Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I do have a problem with 'the winner has the benefits', it is unfair (from the non-initiation of violence POV).
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)
Guess what, I do think there is a problem with Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I do have a problem with 'the winner has the benefits', it is unfair (from the non-initiation of violence POV).
Levi, please understand that I'm not asking you for an opinion. I'm asking a simple questions:
"To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...?"
You are telling them that Israel is the culprit in this case and it should give back the land - but why? On what grounds? Because you feel that it would be honourable?
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Exactly, this doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong. It's just the way such things were always taken care of, so the argument 'they live there' makes absolutely no sense.
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
Since when there are right and wrong offensive wars? Have you ever heard of a country that REALLY had a good moral cause to start a war?
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
Well I haven't seen Western countries attacking Russia for their fights with our underground, maybe I missed something? Did they send leaflets by airplanes again, like during WW II?
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law. Imagine that suddenly there are more Turkish people than German people in Berlin/Munich/Dortmund and they want to declare their city as part of Turkey. How do you think, what chances of accomplishing their self-determination of nation they would have?
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)
I would like to remind you how many treaties Poland had before the German attack. France, Britain, Romania and a couple more of them. Please, now you remind me how many of these treaties went into power after the German attack?
Britain sent leaflets over our country, asking the Germans to stop fighting. The French stood at the France-Germany boarder and relaxed. Romania? They have interned our fleeing soldiers in camps.
Levi, please understand that I'm not asking you for an opinion. I'm asking a simple questions:
"To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...?"
You are telling them that Israel is the culprit in this case and it should give back the land - but why? On what grounds? Because you feel that it would be honourable?
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Exactly, this doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong. It's just the way such things were always taken care of, so the argument 'they live there' makes absolutely no sense.
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
Since when there are right and wrong offensive wars? Have you ever heard of a country that REALLY had a good moral cause to start a war?
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
Well I haven't seen Western countries attacking Russia for their fights with our underground, maybe I missed something? Did they send leaflets by airplanes again, like during WW II?
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law. Imagine that suddenly there are more Turkish people than German people in Berlin/Munich/Dortmund and they want to declare their city as part of Turkey. How do you think, what chances of accomplishing their self-determination of nation they would have?
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)
I would like to remind you how many treaties Poland had before the German attack. France, Britain, Romania and a couple more of them. Please, now you remind me how many of these treaties went into power after the German attack?
Britain sent leaflets over our country, asking the Germans to stop fighting. The French stood at the France-Germany boarder and relaxed. Romania? They have interned our fleeing soldiers in camps.
as for the treaties, we also had a 10 year no-aggression treaty with Germany :-)
Well I haven't seen Western countries attacking Russia for their fights with our underground, maybe I missed something? Did they send leaflets by airplanes again, like during WW II?
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law.
Just 2 line of your post ...
Ofcourse not, this definitly would have been the start of WW3 for sure if the USSR was attacked by the western nations :/ Don't think anyone would have wanted that.
You give 1 example, but I can give you a much longer list of UN interventions in wars.
And maybe you don't believe in those laws, but they aren't fictional ;) Reminds me of the movie Blow:
George: Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants.
Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law.
Just 2 line of your post ...
Ofcourse not, this definitly would have been the start of WW3 for sure if the USSR was attacked by the western nations :/ Don't think anyone would have wanted that.
You give 1 example, but I can give you a much longer list of UN interventions in wars.
And maybe you don't believe in those laws, but they aren't fictional ;) Reminds me of the movie Blow:
George: Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants.
Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.
So these rules are applicable when they are plausible and easy to execute?
To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...?
According to this logic, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe would be part of Russia.
and Western Europe would be divided into parts of Canada, USA and Great Britan. Those were the countries that "won" the last World War in Europe and thus own Europe.
Come to think of it, Israel would not even exist and be part of England...
(edited)
According to this logic, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe would be part of Russia.
and Western Europe would be divided into parts of Canada, USA and Great Britan. Those were the countries that "won" the last World War in Europe and thus own Europe.
Come to think of it, Israel would not even exist and be part of England...
(edited)
Absolutely not true.
First of all, Poland WAS part of Russia, as was Belarus and Ukraine. We were independent on paper.
Secondly, US, UK and Russia made the borders of Europe as winners after the war - did they not? They decided which country will be under whose control, they have divided Germany, they decided what to do with African countries.
Or did someone else tell them what to do, how was it made...?
You also have to remember that UK etc. did not fight for example the French - they were liberating the lands conquered by the Germans, that's a totally different thing.
(edited)
First of all, Poland WAS part of Russia, as was Belarus and Ukraine. We were independent on paper.
Secondly, US, UK and Russia made the borders of Europe as winners after the war - did they not? They decided which country will be under whose control, they have divided Germany, they decided what to do with African countries.
Or did someone else tell them what to do, how was it made...?
You also have to remember that UK etc. did not fight for example the French - they were liberating the lands conquered by the Germans, that's a totally different thing.
(edited)
There is no nation of Kosovo and US with western EU create new state. There are just Albanians living in Albania and Serbs living in Serbia. So if no palestíne state is needed, why there is Kosovo :) ??
I will buy yearly PLUS for.the first one who will.solve Israel/Palestine problem :).
(Nuclear weapons or other mass destruction solutions are reserved be me :) :) )
(Nuclear weapons or other mass destruction solutions are reserved be me :) :) )
Female ancestor : "Mmmghhhouughhh" - Translation : 'Fucking bastards they are all !! They are all my children !!! Why did i forget to use condoms at that time !! Why ?? Tell me please !!"
(edited)
the strongest nation(s), big corporations and powerful people run the world and instead of spending your time trying to make sense of politics (where as usual stronger makes the laws), better try to finish some decent school, start a family and make your own microuniverse there where you will feel safe and loved.
does any of you that are debating (if repeating few phrases over and over again can be called debating) think that this is going anywhere? it has as much sense as spamtopic, to be honest. maybe some of you feed their ego, or i don't know what, but i find it hard to believe anything more than that can be achieved.
from news around the world, this turned into israel vs palestine stuff, where majority of posts are from people that are from central and north europe (that were also experts for libya, kosovo, syria) and have built they opinion based on something they've read, without any first-hand experience.
throwing numbers like "is 10 israelis worth more than 250 palestinians" is disgusting and if some of you have seen war or seen a killed human or had dear member of your family or a friend killed you'd be ashamed of some things you wrote here.
in the end i'd just like to add, that i do not support any side in this conflict, as no piece of land is worth a single life, and that is the lesson most of you here are still to learn
does any of you that are debating (if repeating few phrases over and over again can be called debating) think that this is going anywhere? it has as much sense as spamtopic, to be honest. maybe some of you feed their ego, or i don't know what, but i find it hard to believe anything more than that can be achieved.
from news around the world, this turned into israel vs palestine stuff, where majority of posts are from people that are from central and north europe (that were also experts for libya, kosovo, syria) and have built they opinion based on something they've read, without any first-hand experience.
throwing numbers like "is 10 israelis worth more than 250 palestinians" is disgusting and if some of you have seen war or seen a killed human or had dear member of your family or a friend killed you'd be ashamed of some things you wrote here.
in the end i'd just like to add, that i do not support any side in this conflict, as no piece of land is worth a single life, and that is the lesson most of you here are still to learn
[i]and the most important question for me, since there is no Palestine country today, why did this country disappeared? who did it? and when?
some people would surely disagree. Is there no Western Sahara just because it is occupied? Was there no Kosovo before they stated to be independent? Is there no Palestine?
--------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo
If I am right, than historically this territory is belong to Serbia,
it was created by the Turks back than at 15 century,
And then the Albanians were sattele there. and you cant keep places that you were won in war as we all agree ;)
but if you want to give them a country, make it be in their historical borders when it was created:)))
===========================================================
Otherway, I just can not believe how lengthy is this discussion and it seems almost impossible to bring here something new. Was there Palestinian state before? Well, Israel wasn´t there for hundreds and thousands years, that´s for sure; and most of the Jewish citizens of Israel had just 30 or less years "tradition" in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can not tell historically who were here first,
But I am pretty sure that Jews lived among the Arabs in some cities,
but most of this country wasnt populated.
It was the best if we could live together again in Liberal Democratic country,
But we cant.
The 2 state solution is a fact for almost everybody , the question is the condition,
Olmert gave Abu Mazen a unique opportunity to end this conflict and hopefully stop the blood,
But unfortunately he refuse it........
==================================================
other side is very arrogant, controls everything and presents it like something totally ok.
Btw, that all is historically ridiculous since Christians always used to be much bigger enemies for both Muslims and Jews...
------------------------------------------------------------
Well the Christians (countries) send us here,
2 birds with one shoot :))))))))))) [i]
(edited)
some people would surely disagree. Is there no Western Sahara just because it is occupied? Was there no Kosovo before they stated to be independent? Is there no Palestine?
--------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo
If I am right, than historically this territory is belong to Serbia,
it was created by the Turks back than at 15 century,
And then the Albanians were sattele there. and you cant keep places that you were won in war as we all agree ;)
but if you want to give them a country, make it be in their historical borders when it was created:)))
===========================================================
Otherway, I just can not believe how lengthy is this discussion and it seems almost impossible to bring here something new. Was there Palestinian state before? Well, Israel wasn´t there for hundreds and thousands years, that´s for sure; and most of the Jewish citizens of Israel had just 30 or less years "tradition" in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can not tell historically who were here first,
But I am pretty sure that Jews lived among the Arabs in some cities,
but most of this country wasnt populated.
It was the best if we could live together again in Liberal Democratic country,
But we cant.
The 2 state solution is a fact for almost everybody , the question is the condition,
Olmert gave Abu Mazen a unique opportunity to end this conflict and hopefully stop the blood,
But unfortunately he refuse it........
==================================================
other side is very arrogant, controls everything and presents it like something totally ok.
Btw, that all is historically ridiculous since Christians always used to be much bigger enemies for both Muslims and Jews...
------------------------------------------------------------
Well the Christians (countries) send us here,
2 birds with one shoot :))))))))))) [i]
(edited)
Levi, please understand that I'm not asking you for an opinion. I'm asking a simple questions:
"To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...?"
You are telling them that Israel is the culprit in this case and it should give back the land - but why? On what grounds? Because you feel that it would be honourable?
And I'm responding them. It's not because the answer doesn't suit you, that it isn't an answer. I don't know if you noticed, but societies change. Most people in Western Europe (including myself) now think that "Hey, I like that piece of land. I'm going to invade it, and if I win, it's mine." is not a right way of gaining land. Since when have we been doing that? Well, most of that developed after WWII.
Exactly, this doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong. It's just the way such things were always taken care of, so the argument 'they live there' makes absolutely no sense.
To nowadays Western standards, it is wrong. You may not like those standards, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit how the rest of the world thinks about those standards. What Israel did in 1973 was wrong to me, and therefore, they have no legitimate claim on Gaza and the West Bank (nor do Egypt and Jordan).
Since when there are right and wrong offensive wars? Have you ever heard of a country that REALLY had a good moral cause to start a war?
Yes. See below (France and the UK).
Well I haven't seen Western countries attacking Russia for their fights with our underground, maybe I missed something? Did they send leaflets by airplanes again, like during WW II?
Well, you can hardly blame the Western countries that they didn't attack Russia after WWII. Europe was totally ruined and more importantly, Russia was stronger at that time. No way the Western countries could have won that. It would be kamikaze, after which we would have been pleasured with communism ourselves.
I've heard this often from Eastern Europeans. Are you blaming us for not saving you from communism? ;-)
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law. Imagine that suddenly there are more Turkish people than German people in Berlin/Munich/Dortmund and they want to declare their city as part of Turkey. How do you think, what chances of accomplishing their self-determination of nation they would have?
Maybe you should search for a definition of nation. Sometimes, 1 million people form a nation, sometimes they don't. It depends on the specific situation. The Turkish Germans are no nation. (Quite frankly, I've used this argument a lot in internal Belgian affairs, funny that this argument is now used against me.)
I would like to remind you how many treaties Poland had before the German attack. France, Britain, Romania and a couple more of them. Please, now you remind me how many of these treaties went into power after the German attack?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me for not knowing what treaties Poland had specifically), but didn't France and the UK declare war to the Germans after the Polish campaign?
Britain sent leaflets over our country, asking the Germans to stop fighting. The French stood at the France-Germany boarder and relaxed. Romania? They have interned our fleeing soldiers in camps.
What did you expect? That the French and the British immediately conquer Germany?
"To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...?"
You are telling them that Israel is the culprit in this case and it should give back the land - but why? On what grounds? Because you feel that it would be honourable?
And I'm responding them. It's not because the answer doesn't suit you, that it isn't an answer. I don't know if you noticed, but societies change. Most people in Western Europe (including myself) now think that "Hey, I like that piece of land. I'm going to invade it, and if I win, it's mine." is not a right way of gaining land. Since when have we been doing that? Well, most of that developed after WWII.
Exactly, this doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong. It's just the way such things were always taken care of, so the argument 'they live there' makes absolutely no sense.
To nowadays Western standards, it is wrong. You may not like those standards, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit how the rest of the world thinks about those standards. What Israel did in 1973 was wrong to me, and therefore, they have no legitimate claim on Gaza and the West Bank (nor do Egypt and Jordan).
Since when there are right and wrong offensive wars? Have you ever heard of a country that REALLY had a good moral cause to start a war?
Yes. See below (France and the UK).
Well I haven't seen Western countries attacking Russia for their fights with our underground, maybe I missed something? Did they send leaflets by airplanes again, like during WW II?
Well, you can hardly blame the Western countries that they didn't attack Russia after WWII. Europe was totally ruined and more importantly, Russia was stronger at that time. No way the Western countries could have won that. It would be kamikaze, after which we would have been pleasured with communism ourselves.
I've heard this often from Eastern Europeans. Are you blaming us for not saving you from communism? ;-)
No, I don't believe in such law and it is a paper law. Imagine that suddenly there are more Turkish people than German people in Berlin/Munich/Dortmund and they want to declare their city as part of Turkey. How do you think, what chances of accomplishing their self-determination of nation they would have?
Maybe you should search for a definition of nation. Sometimes, 1 million people form a nation, sometimes they don't. It depends on the specific situation. The Turkish Germans are no nation. (Quite frankly, I've used this argument a lot in internal Belgian affairs, funny that this argument is now used against me.)
I would like to remind you how many treaties Poland had before the German attack. France, Britain, Romania and a couple more of them. Please, now you remind me how many of these treaties went into power after the German attack?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me for not knowing what treaties Poland had specifically), but didn't France and the UK declare war to the Germans after the Polish campaign?
Britain sent leaflets over our country, asking the Germans to stop fighting. The French stood at the France-Germany boarder and relaxed. Romania? They have interned our fleeing soldiers in camps.
What did you expect? That the French and the British immediately conquer Germany?
And I'm responding them. It's not because the answer doesn't suit you, that it isn't an answer. I don't know if you noticed, but societies change. Most people in Western Europe (including myself) now think that "Hey, I like that piece of land. I'm going to invade it, and if I win, it's mine." is not a right way of gaining land. Since when have we been doing that? Well, most of that developed after WWII.
Ah, so it's an attitude that was not practiced when we had conflicts in Europe, since we had no so far since this change of approach towards war, but you know that it's the only way that it should work and you impose your ideas on Israel...because you think so, because you're such a developed western european...nice :).
To nowadays Western standards, it is wrong. You may not like those standards, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit how the rest of the world thinks about those standards. What Israel did in 1973 was wrong to me, and therefore, they have no legitimate claim on Gaza and the West Bank (nor do Egypt and Jordan).
so maybe we should do some border changes in Europe to start with, since we had some terrible wars and border changes in Europe before...? the question is to which borders we should return, pre WW II? Middle ages? Ancient times?
Well, you can hardly blame the Western countries that they didn't attack Russia after WWII. Europe was totally ruined and more importantly, Russia was stronger at that time. No way the Western countries could have won that. It would be kamikaze, after which we would have been pleasured with communism ourselves.
I've heard this often from Eastern Europeans. Are you blaming us for not saving you from communism? ;-)
I'm not blaming Belgium for anything, since you had no impact whatsoever on what happened to us. Belgium was a puppet back then, only 3 countries really had anything to say about Poland etc. - Britain, Usa and Russia.
And it's not that Poland wasn't saved from communism. Poland was THROWN into communism and yes, that's something I'm really sad about, considering how Poland thought on all fronts of 2nd WW, from the start right till the end. But it's a matter for another discussion.
As for the topic, Russia might've been stronger in 1945, right after the war ended, but I would like you to check when did we get out of the communism and what was happening in Poland when we were trying to do it. Then you can start writing about the importance of helping the self-determination thingie, which is used only when it fits the politics of Western countries.
Maybe you should search for a definition of nation. Sometimes, 1 million people form a nation, sometimes they don't. It depends on the specific situation. The Turkish Germans are no nation. (Quite frankly, I've used this argument a lot in internal Belgian affairs, funny that this argument is now used against me.)
Turkish Germans might feel as Turkish nation, or are implying that they can only feel German? Or maybe then don't have a nation at all? :)
Correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me for not knowing what treaties Poland had specifically), but didn't France and the UK declare war to the Germans after the Polish campaign?
France and UK guaranteed military help to Poland the moment it gets invaded by Germans.
Now, what happened exactly:
1st September 1939, Germany invades Poland.
3rd September 1939, France and Britain declare war at Germany
12 September 1939, at the meeting of main Fr and Br generals, there is a decision not to help Poland
We fought on our own, there was literally no help at all. France didn't even cross their border, Britain sent some planes with leaflets over Poland and Germany, asking the Germans to stop the war.
It was not only an act of treachery, but also a stupid decision - Germany was expecting that the Allies won't do a thing after invasion of Poland and left the western part of Germany almost unguarded, sending a huge majority of their forces to attack Poland.
So please, don't tell me about binding treaties.
What did you expect? That the French and the British immediately conquer Germany?
They could've attacked Germany on their western boarder, which would actually make them very vulnerable . It wasn't that hard to block the supply lines by bombing the railway lines and without fuel and food, the German army would've been very easy to stop.
The least they could do, was sending us weapon supplies, but there was no such support.
Ah, so it's an attitude that was not practiced when we had conflicts in Europe, since we had no so far since this change of approach towards war, but you know that it's the only way that it should work and you impose your ideas on Israel...because you think so, because you're such a developed western european...nice :).
To nowadays Western standards, it is wrong. You may not like those standards, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit how the rest of the world thinks about those standards. What Israel did in 1973 was wrong to me, and therefore, they have no legitimate claim on Gaza and the West Bank (nor do Egypt and Jordan).
so maybe we should do some border changes in Europe to start with, since we had some terrible wars and border changes in Europe before...? the question is to which borders we should return, pre WW II? Middle ages? Ancient times?
Well, you can hardly blame the Western countries that they didn't attack Russia after WWII. Europe was totally ruined and more importantly, Russia was stronger at that time. No way the Western countries could have won that. It would be kamikaze, after which we would have been pleasured with communism ourselves.
I've heard this often from Eastern Europeans. Are you blaming us for not saving you from communism? ;-)
I'm not blaming Belgium for anything, since you had no impact whatsoever on what happened to us. Belgium was a puppet back then, only 3 countries really had anything to say about Poland etc. - Britain, Usa and Russia.
And it's not that Poland wasn't saved from communism. Poland was THROWN into communism and yes, that's something I'm really sad about, considering how Poland thought on all fronts of 2nd WW, from the start right till the end. But it's a matter for another discussion.
As for the topic, Russia might've been stronger in 1945, right after the war ended, but I would like you to check when did we get out of the communism and what was happening in Poland when we were trying to do it. Then you can start writing about the importance of helping the self-determination thingie, which is used only when it fits the politics of Western countries.
Maybe you should search for a definition of nation. Sometimes, 1 million people form a nation, sometimes they don't. It depends on the specific situation. The Turkish Germans are no nation. (Quite frankly, I've used this argument a lot in internal Belgian affairs, funny that this argument is now used against me.)
Turkish Germans might feel as Turkish nation, or are implying that they can only feel German? Or maybe then don't have a nation at all? :)
Correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me for not knowing what treaties Poland had specifically), but didn't France and the UK declare war to the Germans after the Polish campaign?
France and UK guaranteed military help to Poland the moment it gets invaded by Germans.
Now, what happened exactly:
1st September 1939, Germany invades Poland.
3rd September 1939, France and Britain declare war at Germany
12 September 1939, at the meeting of main Fr and Br generals, there is a decision not to help Poland
We fought on our own, there was literally no help at all. France didn't even cross their border, Britain sent some planes with leaflets over Poland and Germany, asking the Germans to stop the war.
It was not only an act of treachery, but also a stupid decision - Germany was expecting that the Allies won't do a thing after invasion of Poland and left the western part of Germany almost unguarded, sending a huge majority of their forces to attack Poland.
So please, don't tell me about binding treaties.
What did you expect? That the French and the British immediately conquer Germany?
They could've attacked Germany on their western boarder, which would actually make them very vulnerable . It wasn't that hard to block the supply lines by bombing the railway lines and without fuel and food, the German army would've been very easy to stop.
The least they could do, was sending us weapon supplies, but there was no such support.
I will give you a link about the British-Polish pre-war agreement, but this post-war comment by British general Ironside says it all:
"Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute he invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves."
Link 1
Link 2
"Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute he invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves."
Link 1
Link 2