Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

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

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 :).

I'm not imposing anything. I'm just saying what I'd like to see. Israel can do what they want, it's their choice, but they know the consequences. The world will not tolerate a second Gaza war (after 2008). But it's their choice.

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?

You're missing the point here. It's not about making up for mistakes in the past. It's about not making those mistakes again.

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.

Oh, believe me, I'm really sad about that too, but I don't see another option back then. It was sacrificing Eastern Europe to keep Western Europe free from communism. You cannot blame the British and the Americans for that.

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.

What are you aiming at here?

And I'm always for the self-determination of nations, if it Kosovo, Catalonia or Scotland.

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? :)

Immigrants cannot claim their new place of living as theirs. That has nothing to do with self-determination. And you don't have a nation, you choose a nation. Whether they identify themselves as German or Turkish, I don't care. As long as they realize that they can't make Berlin or whatever a part of Turkey.

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.

Well, I don't know the exact details, but you might have a point about attacking Western Germany. (Although the French army was not that strong, given how easy they lost France themselves.) But honestly, this has nothing to do with the original discussion.
(edited)

I'm not imposing anything. I'm just saying what I'd like to see. Israel can do what they want, it's their choice, but they know the consequences. The world will not tolerate a second Gaza war (after 2008). But it's their choice.

The thing is that this conflict is too complex and has too antagonistic sides to find a good way of ending it. Whatever reason and idea you might possibly come up with, will be turned down by one of the sides.

You're missing the point here. It's not about making up for mistakes in the past. It's about not making those mistakes again.

Well Israel isn't where and how it is since last 5 years, is it?

Oh, believe me, I'm really sad about that too, but I don't see another option back then. It was sacrificing Eastern Europe to keep Western Europe free from communism. You cannot blame the British and the Americans for that.

If you read about the meetings of the big three, especially the Jalta one, you will see that Britain and especially USA gave up on Poland all too easily...

While Churchill knew what's going to happen in Poland, Roosevelt who had the upper hand in negotiations with Stalin was too naive and too in awe with uncle Stalin. He genuinely believed that there will be free elections etc. in Poland. Poor old chap...

What are you aiming at here?

And I'm always for the self-determination of nations, if it Kosovo, Catalonia or Scotland.

I was referring to your post, where you said that the West couldn't oppose Russia in 1945. We were a 'Russian state' till 1989, for almost 45 years...and we had to take what's ours on our own and it was only possible thanks to weakening of Russia. Had Russia kept its strenght, we would've been another Belarus today.

Immigrants cannot claim their new place of living as theirs. That has nothing to do with self-determination. And you don't have a nation, you choose a nation. Whether they identify themselves as German or Turkish, I don't care. As long as they realize that they can't make Berlin or whatever a part of Turkey.

If you read about self-determination, you will see that it is a very broad term. Not even broad, more like it is not determined itself - it's just a number of truism that sound very nice in the mouths of political philosophers.

while on the subject, we have a number of such problems in Europe, no need to look so far as to Israel and Palestine - for example we have the problem of Chechen minority in Russia...

The self determination idea is and idea, a notion written on paper, that has no binding in politics...

The thing is that this conflict is too complex and has too antagonistic sides to find a good way of ending it. Whatever reason and idea you might possibly come up with, will be turned down by one of the sides.

Your point being?

I was referring to your post, where you said that the West couldn't oppose Russia in 1945. We were a 'Russian state' till 1989, for almost 45 years...and we had to take what's ours on our own and it was only possible thanks to weakening of Russia. Had Russia kept its strenght, we would've been another Belarus today.

So once again, what are you aiming at here? Should the Western states have invaded Eastern Europe?

If you read about self-determination, you will see that it is a very broad term. Not even broad, more like it is not determined itself - it's just a number of truism that sound very nice in the mouths of political philosophers.

Self-determination of nations is very clear. What is unclear about it?

while on the subject, we have a number of such problems in Europe, no need to look so far as to Israel and Palestine - for example we have the problem of Chechen minority in Russia...

So the Chechens should be able to chose if they want to stay within Russia or not. What about it?

The self determination idea is and idea, a notion written on paper, that has no binding in politics...

Nothing is binding. Not even the constitution. So what, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about the self-determination of nations.

Your point being?

My point is that you can't just write 'they should do x and y, because I feel like it's the proper way to do and that's a viewpoint of a civilised person from civilised Western Europe'

So once again, what are you aiming at here? Should the Western states have invaded Eastern Europe?

my point is that every convention, law, notion etc. is applied only when it fits the plans, ideas etc. of those who are applying them. therefore there is no sense whatsoever in writing 'the should do x, because we have a nice convention of 'y' which stats that (...)'

Self-determination of nations is very clear. What is unclear about it?

via wiki:

"The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[5] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[6]"

So the Chechens should be able to chose if they want to stay within Russia or not. What about it?

Well what about it...hm...maybe that it's almost ignored by the civilised Western Europe, with all of its treaties, notions, agreements, principles etc.?

Maybe you're not on topic. Chechens do NOT want to stay within Russia, but they HAVE to stay withing Russia and every uprising-type of action they undertake is brutally taken down by Russian military forces.

Nothing is binding. Not even the constitution. So what, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about the self-determination of nations.

Oh, of course you can have an opinion. I just thought that we were discussing what should be done in practice, not philosophic theories of utopist world :-)

I just thought that we were discussing what should be done in practice, not philosophic theories of utopist world :-)

But you do realise that you are discussing with Levitate :p It's half a miracle he haven't made a reference to libertarianism in the last few posts yet :p

every convention, law, notion etc. is applied only when it fits the plans, ideas etc. of those who are applying them

So true...

Well the self-determination was a close one. ;)

we are chatting about this here cos we r experts on this themes :-DDD

I used to write long post too, but I stop read long post too as many people....

you play longer, you should already do same, or I just developed faster :-D ??

guys... we can try stop spamming about history and try spam more about future.

What do you think, what can happen on the world according to current conflicts and problems (not only in israel) after ten and thirty years :-) ?

EU: 10 years ? maybe really new EU currency ?
30 years? back to one EU currency again :-D ?

Israel: 10 years? several ugly conflict with chemical or biological weapons but used by terrorist so now counter attack ....
30 years? first conflict with mass destruct. but just semi-local consequences...

US: 10 years ? again as usual, congress pass new limit for issuing new state bonds :-D
30 years ? big crise in US cos Chine started new real currency with gold, world is close to WWIII but Chine is trying to calm situation and are helping to USA and to the rest of the world :-D

Sokker: 10 years ? Plus is getting more expensive, 1024 eur (cos inflation :-D )
30 years ? end of hattric game and sokker users got above 60K :-D

in Palestine territories, the same thing that now; war, destruction, many blood...

Europe... the down of semi-world hegemony; EU bankrupt

USA, war to war in any "diabolic" nation in the world

the world will be dominated by China, Korea, India and a little by Japan and Russia

Latinamerica probably by primary resources, population... will be partner of Asia, specially Brazil

"BRIC" and others.
(edited)

But you do realise that you are discussing with Levitate :p It's half a miracle he haven't made a reference to libertarianism in the last few posts yet :p

I tried not to, and with the self-determination - like Borkos said - I came close to that ;-) That's why I explicitly said 'self-determination of nations', because of course, there is also a 'self-determination of individuals'.

(I can't help it that libertarianism is a solution for a lot of the world's problems :p)

@ Borkos:

My point is that you can't just write 'they should do x and y, because I feel like it's the proper way to do and that's a viewpoint of a civilised person from civilised Western Europe'

Actually, I can and I did. You can just ignore it ;-)

my point is that every convention, law, notion etc. is applied only when it fits the plans, ideas etc. of those who are applying them

Unfortunately, very often, that's true. Still no argument to not have them (those conventions).

The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.

Of course it doesn't. That's why it's called SELF-determination of nations.

Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.

That's true. It's not always clear what a nation is (although Turkish Germans will never be considered a nation), but self-determination of nations is clear.

Well what about it...hm...maybe that it's almost ignored by the civilised Western Europe, with all of its treaties, notions, agreements, principles etc.?

I'm not ignoring it. You cannot hold me responsible for the actions of the states of Western Europe. I'm just expressing my opinions here.

Maybe you're not on topic. Chechens do NOT want to stay within Russia, but they HAVE to stay withing Russia and every uprising-type of action they undertake is brutally taken down by Russian military forces.

Come on dude, you know what I'm going to say here ;-)

Oh, of course you can have an opinion. I just thought that we were discussing what should be done in practice, not philosophic theories of utopist world :-)

Pragmatism sucks ;-)

It's not really pragmatism, it's fatalistic realism

I'm a huge fan of it, you never get disappointed with anything when you have such attitude ;p

Stop that long posts please :)