Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Very unhappy to hear that both Ukrainians and Poles are allowing racism against non-whites to impact decisions. Not that the Russians would be any better; they'd probably be worse in the same situation.

It's alleged that Syrians, Africans, British and American Africans are routinely pulled off buses to allow Ukrainians to get out first, and signs in Poland say NO BLACKS.

If true, that's just terrible. The invasion is horrific and a violation of the 1994 treaty; the use of cluster bombs and vacuum bombs on civilian populations is a war crime. However, the eastern democracies have a long way to go, and its best to remember what kinds of societies they create. It ain't Iowa, folks.

The unintended consequences of all of this also have to be considered. It's one thing to get Germany to pay its fair share of NATO costs, but is a militarized Germany really a good idea? I honestly don't know, because I don't have a good enough grasp of the real mind set in Germany these days, especially when I see that even on this site there are those whose Pan-Germanism superiority complex is starting to show.

Hard hearted as it makes me feel, sending materiel is one thing, but declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine could easily lead to NATO planes shooting down Russian aircraft. What then if Putin uses so called tactical nukes? I wouldn't put it past him.

I'd just like to say for the record that some posts on this thread lead me to dig deeper into far right and far left rhetoric on this matter, and it's really sad that instead of seeing objective analysis I see people just basing their opinions on their political orientation, with much of it still swirling around one's view of Trump. It's beyond pathetic. That's what really makes me despair of the future.
 
Northener said:
Schmitt and Dugin resemble each other. They are one the reactionary side, 'revolutionary-conservative'.

My ancestry is shaped by the North Sea culture. So that landman collectivism I have no connection with it.

What I do like is the Rhineland model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
That has unjust been written off.


I think that after the Second World War, a country like Germany has moved towards the seaman's perspective.


In this topic we talked about Helmut Schmidt he is the representative of the German form of seaman's perspective and the movement towards it.


This is a perfect picture of 'seaman' Helmut Schmidt with a Hamburg skipper's cap and 'landman' DDR general secretary Honecker with.....hahahaha how spot on!!!

Click to expand...

In 1952, Stalin offered the prospect of a unified but *neutral* Germany to Adenauer. Reportedly, Adenauer opposed this prospect, in part, because he wished to eliminate the Prussian influence on the (west) German national character. Of course, Adenauer had other motivations. He was a devout Catholic, and though the Catholic/Lutheran divide in Germany tends to run North-South, it also has an East-West axis.
 
Malaparte said:
I realize you're in the Netherlands, so I cannot fairly expect your barbs to be accurate. But I am much closer to Buchanan in my views than Perot, and I went down to Occupy Wall Street a few times to show my support, but never rallied with the Tea Party.

As for the "hillbilly position," I hope to become a hillbilly. It appeals to the extremist in me. After NYC, why settle in the grey suburbs of Middle America? Full-on hillbilly it shall be for me.

All of this grand talk from the last century. You are fighting the wrong war. China is the enemy, and this should determine all else.

Sadly the Western propaganda machine is now in overdrive, and war hysteria has taken hold.
Click to expand...

OK yes forgive me the details but indeed Buchanan says something to me....but was some time ago he was in the picture wasn't he?

Full-on hillbilly it shall be for me.
Click to expand...

May be strange but I think ypu are a quite honest person, I guess we are quite differentiated in visions but that's ok.

Sadly the Western propaganda machine is now in overdrive, and war hysteria has taken hold
Click to expand...

I wish it could be that simple. My worries are much much more that in fact 1 person, totally isolated from the outside world, with yes marbles around him, even his inner circle are treated by Putin as schoolboys. So besides wrong or not wrong. Such a situation leads to a ver very narrow mind....that is very tricky.
 
Malaparte said:
In 1952, Stalin offered the prospect of a unified but *neutral* Germany to Adenauer. Reportedly, Adenauer opposed this prospect, in part, because he wished to eliminate the Prussian influence on the (west) German national character. Of course, Adenauer had other motivations. He was a devout Catholic, and though the Catholic/Lutheran divide in Germany tends to run North-South, it also has an East-West axis.
Click to expand...

Correct, nevertheless I like the "sea civilisation" more because that meant already in the 17th century much more diversity. Just like in for example NY the North Sea culture was kind of blue print, figurally (culture) and literary (Walstraat, Haarlem, Breukelen.....).
 
I've met a Russian and Ukrainian married couple through work always loved the sound of the language pleasant to the ear...is this a all just a culture war on Putin's part? I know the east is very conservative and Russia is not the Athiest communist country it once was now it promotes the Orthodox faith. I was hoping that perhaps Putin would be satisfied with carving out a buffer state and installing a Pro Russian government... If that is what it would take to maintain peace I would sign on the dotted line...Europe is too precious to descend into chaos... I don't like Autocratic regimes but I understand the reason they exist people are afraid of losing their identity and culture and you don't need the majority of a population to have that sentiment only a strong vocal minority is needed for an Autocrat to seize the day. I fear the United States is at that point... unfortunately conservatism stifles progress in my mind you need ages of enlightenment, but perhaps the Greeks were right Golden Ages descend into decay only to deteriorate back into an Iron Age...
 
Angela said:
Very unhappy to hear that both Ukrainians and Poles are allowing racism against non-whites to impact decisions. Not that the Russians would be any better; they'd probably be worse in the same situation.

It's alleged that Syrians, Africans, British and American Africans are routinely pulled off buses to allow Ukrainians to get out first, and signs in Poland say NO BLACKS.

If true, that's just terrible. The invasion is horrific and a violation of the 1994 treaty; the use of cluster bombs and vacuum bombs on civilian populations is a war crime. However, the eastern democracies have a long way to go, and its best to remember what kinds of societies they create. It ain't Iowa, folks.

The unintended consequences of all of this also have to be considered. It's one thing to get Germany to pay its fair share of NATO costs, but is a militarized Germany really a good idea? I honestly don't know, because I don't have a good enough grasp of the real mind set in Germany these days, especially when I see that even on this site there are those whose Pan-Germanism superiority complex is starting to show.

Hard hearted as it makes me feel, sending materiel is one thing, but declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine could easily lead to NATO planes shooting down Russian aircraft. What then if Putin uses so called tactical nukes? I wouldn't put it past him.

I'd just like to say for the record that some posts on this thread lead me to dig deeper into far right and far left rhetoric on this matter, and it's really sad that instead of seeing objective analysis I see people just basing their opinions on their political orientation, with much of it still swirling around one's view of Trump. It's beyond pathetic. That's what really makes me despair of the future.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

And with regard to this:
The unintended consequences of all of this also have to be considered. It's one thing to get Germany to pay its fair share of NATO costs, but is a militarized Germany really a good idea? I honestly don't know, because I don't have a good enough grasp of the real mind set in Germany these days, especially when I see that even on this site there are those whose Pan-Germanism superiority complex is starting to show.
Click to expand...

I'm the the last one who is a pan Germanist let that be clear. Nevertheless also thanks to the US the BRD has developed to stabile democracy. Pacifism was the norm. And with regard to Putin's Russia they aimed until recent for negations and change through trade. But they saw Putin in the ugly face and made a major turn. When the Pax Americana is lowered because the isolationist tendencies are becoming prominent it's good that BRD fills the gap and stands firm against the neo czar.

The real problem we now in Europe have and that's way way more dangerous imo than pan-germanic (that has nearly zero support here) is that we have large sections of the populist right that are direct connected with the Kremlin. Quit absurd in earlier times the commies had such lines with the Kremlin.....now it's it's the fare right.

https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/27/ex-ba...ght-leader-manchurian-candidate-putin-support
https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/25/far-right-baudets-pro-russia-statements-raising-concerns-parliament
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/02/...tent-of-russian-influence-in-the-netherlands/
 
firetown said:
I always liked Schmidt. My father met him a few times. My father was the timpanist in the Hamburg Philharmonic Orchestra. Schmidt attended many times and also brought a few foreign representatives with him occasionally. After the concerts, he would sit with the people from the orchestra and have a few beers and/or dinner.
But again... in 1982 the FDP decided to break the great coalition and side with Helmut Kohl. A move that has forever tainted my view of the world and the claim that we live in a democratic world. Mind you... in the election before, Schmidt beat Kohl.
Click to expand...

Wow fascinating. The new Hamburg Philharmonic building is really nice.

Schmidt lost also because (way way less than in Netherlands but still) coalitions. The FDP was turning to the right, went into reaganomics.

Schmidt, pretty hawkish, was one of the few in the SPD for the NATO double decision, placement of nuclear missiles. So he was under a lot of pressure.
 
Northener said:
I'm the the last one who is a pan Germanist let that be clear. Nevertheless also thanks to the US the BRD has developed to stabile democracy. Pacifism was the norm. And with regard to Putin's Russia they aimed until recent for negations and change through trade. But they saw Putin in the ugly face and made a major turn. When the Pax Americana is lowered because the isolationist tendencies are becoming prominent it's good that BRD fills the gap and stands firm against the neo czar.
Click to expand...

Germany needs to remilitarize. This is not because America is "isolationist," but because American must "pivot" to China. However, Germany cannot afford to get into an arms race with Russia, at least not in the near term. The absolute gap between Russian and West European capabilities is too great for the latter to contemplate an arms race. Therefore, Germany must come to an understanding with Russia. In effect, Germany will have to persuade Russia to allow it to remilitarize. This can be negotiated. Germany will have to give in order to receive. Obviously trust between the two countries will deteriorate as a result of the present conflict. Hopefully the deterioration in relations is short lived.

Right now it looks like the Western strategy is to conduct a proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine, and exert all its economic powers to collapse the Russian economy.
 
[FONT=&quot][h=1]Using SWIFT for Economic Warfare Could Come at a Heavy Cost[/h]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Feb 28, 2022|Categories: Federal Reserve, Foreign Policy

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The government of the United States has intervened militarily in other countries for decades, against the council of founders like George Washington who advised America should “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.”
But the U.S. doesn’t only project power across the globe through its massive military. It also weaponizes the U.S. dollar, using its economic dominance and its privilege as the issuer of the reserve currency as a carrot-stick tool of foreign policy.
The U.S. government showers billions of dollars in foreign aid to “friends.” On the other hand, “enemies” can find themselves locked out of SWIFT, the global financial system that the U.S. effectively controls using the dollar.
SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The system enables financial institutions to send and receive information about financial transactions in a secure, standardized environment. Since the dollar serves as the world reserve currency, SWIFT facilitates the international dollar system.
SWIFT and dollar dominance give the U.S. a great deal of leverage over other countries.
The U.S. has used the system as a stick before. In 2014 and 2015, the Obama administration blocked several Russian banks from SWIFT as relations between the two countries deteriorated. Under Trump, the U.S. threatened to lock China out of the dollar system if it failed to follow U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin threatened this economic nuclear option during a conference broadcast on CNBC.
“If China doesn’t follow these sanctions, we will put additional sanctions on them and prevent them from accessing the U.S. and international dollar system, and that’s quite meaningful.”
​
Locking a country completely out of SWIFT would effectively cut it off economically from the world. But there would also be consequences that ripple through other economies. For instance, a member of the Russian parliament warned locking his country completely out of SWIFT would halt the flow of goods into Europe.
If Russia is disconnected from SWIFT, then we will not receive [foreign] currency, but buyers, European countries in the first place, will not receive our goods — oil, gas, metals and other important components.”
​
Given America’s history of using sanctions as a foreign policy tool, Russia wasn’t unprepared for the move. In fact, A number of countries that know they could easily find themselves in the crosshairs have taken steps to limit their dependence on the dollar and have even been working to establish alternative payment systems. This includes Russia, China and Iran.
Russia developed its own payment system for internal use several years ago. According to the Central Bank of Russia, 416 Russian companies and government organizations had joined the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) as of September 2018.
A growing number of central banks have also been buying gold as a way to diversify their holdings away from the greenback.
Before ending its purchase program at the onset of the COVID pandemic, Russia was the biggest central bank buyer of gold. The Central Bank of Russia bought $4.3 billion worth of the yellow metal between June 2019 and June 2020. And the Russians were buying gold long before that. The Central Bank of Russia bought gold every month from March 2015. According to Bloomberg, “Russia spent more than $40 billion building a war chest of gold over the past five years, making it the world’s biggest buyer.”
Meanwhile, the Russian central bank was aggressively divesting itself of US Treasuries. Russia sold off nearly half of its US debt in April 2018 alone, dumping $47.4 billion of its $96.1 billion in US Treasuries.
It’s not just America’s “enemies” who are worried about the U.S. abusing its economic power. Her friends are also wary, as they should be.
After Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, the EU announced the creation of a special payment channel to circumvent U.S. economic sanctions and facilitate trade with Iran. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini made the announcement after a meeting with foreign ministers from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran. She said the new payment channel would allow companies to preserve oil and other business deals with Iran.
This underscores a risk to the U.S. sanction policies could also have long-run consequences, eventually undermining the dollar as the world reserve currency.
Economic analyst Peter Schiff warned that other countries are watching how the U.S handles its power as the issuer of the global reserve currency during the Russian-Ukraine war.
China is looking on thinking, well, Russia is doing something America doesn’t want. They’re getting sanctioned. What if we do something that America doesn’t want? We get sanctioned. They pull the dollar out from under us. Let’s get out from under the dollar on our own. Let’s not leave this weapon in the hands of the U.S. that can be turned against us at any time.”
​
If enough countries abandon the dollar, the value of the U.S. currency would collapse and create economic chaos here at home. The de-dollarization of the world economy would likely perpetuate a currency crisis in the United States. Practically speaking, it would likely lead to hyperinflation.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government should be wary of throwing its economic weight around too glibly. It isn’t the only country with an economic nuclear option. China ranks as the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. If the Chinese were to dump a significant amount of U.S. Treasuries, it would collapse the bond market and make it impossible for the U.S. to finance its massive debt.
America’s undeclared wars have cost trillions of dollars. And economic sanctions are an act of war.
Most people view economic sanctions as an acceptable alternative to military force. But economic warfare also comes at a cost. It’s typically not the sanctioned government that suffers. It’s the innocent people living in that country that must cope with shortages and increasing prices.
As James Madison said, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”
War always comes at a steep cost – whether military or economic.


[/FONT]
 
Malaparte said:
This thread has advanced 10 pages in 24 hours, so I can't respond to everything that has likely been said.

However, any good liberal who criticizes the Russians for not allowing anti-war demonstrations really needs to hold up a mirror to his own country.

I should also point out that as a nationalist, I generally sympathize with Navalny, just as I sympathize with the Ukrainian nationalists. I certainly don't approve of the Russian propaganda that portrays the Ukrainian fighters as neo-Nazis and the like. And I recognize that Putin is a Russian imperialist (with limited ambitions), and that as an imperialist he will oppress all nationalist movements in the territories he controls.

Again, my position is informed by balance-of-power considerations. I think we are making a massive mistake in conducting war against Russia. Only China stands to profit from this.

And though I am reluctant to "personalize" arguments that ought to stick to the merits, I will say that I quit my job, gave up everything I had, moved to a red state, and took the bar exam last week. I am hardly a great legal mind, but I intend to fight for basic liberties that I took for granted for far too long (freedom of speech, freedom of bodily integrity). Easier said than done, but that is my intention. Right now I am barely competent to defend against a speeding ticket, and I am no longer a young man.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA Ok. Clear story.

About the balance of power.......We are so freaking close to the following scenario. And everybody condemns Joe Biden. Nevertheless he stands firm (with sanctions) without ******* up Putin completely. Putin is in a total tunnel vision and knows no internal checks and balances any longer. If Putin freaks out who is going to prevent him to touch the red button??

That's pretty close to the big amergerdon. Princeton scenario.....:

 
Malaparte said:
Germany needs to remilitarize. This is not because America is "isolationist," but because American must "pivot" to China. However, Germany cannot afford to get into an arms race with Russia, at least not in the near term. The absolute gap between Russian and West European capabilities is too great for the latter to contemplate an arms race. Therefore, Germany must come to an understanding with Russia. In effect, Germany will have to persuade Russia to allow it to remilitarize. This can be negotiated. Germany will have to give in order to receive. Obviously trust between the two countries will deteriorate as a result of the present conflict. Hopefully the deterioration in relations is short lived.

Right now it looks like the Western strategy is to conduct a proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine, and exert all its economic powers to collapse the Russian economy.
Click to expand...

They pretty well can, they are the fourth economy in the world, they have made 100 billion "over night" free for extra investment in the Bundeswehr. And may be an old stereotype but they know how to organize (the invasion of Russia in the Ukraine doesn't give that impression they really on brutal simple power with cluster bombs and they even have nuclear options in mind....al blunt power nothing more) so sorry Malaparte Russia is no match. And there is even no need for Germany to deal with Putin's Russia. The simple fact the is since last Thursday gone. The only way the relationship could get normal is after Putin.
 
Northener said:
OK yes forgive me the details but indeed Buchanan says something to me....but was some time ago he was in the picture wasn't he?



May be strange but I think ypu are a quite honest person, I guess we are quite differentiated in visions but that's ok.



I wish it could be that simple. My worries are much much more that in fact 1 person, totally isolated from the outside world, with yes marbles around him, even his inner circle are treated by Putin as schoolboys. So besides wrong or not wrong. Such a situation leads to a ver very narrow mind....that is very tricky.
Click to expand...

Northerner: Not to move the thread away from the subject of Ukraine and Putin. Yes, Pat Buchanan was indeed a long time ago. He comes from Irish-Catholic background, Jesuit Educated at Georgetown (when it was still a Catholic school in more than name only), but still tied to the working-class roots.

He worked for both Nixon and Reagan as a speechwriter and he generally did not care for Bush 1. While I think he agreed with Bush 1 getting an international coalition to stop Saddam's invasion into Kuwait, I think Bush 1's "new World Order" speech was where Buchanan totally broke with Bush 1 as he saw this speech as not only relating to dealing with Saddam, but the use of the global trade system to be a force for both economic and foreign policy to get countries like China and Russia to behave like the USA and European democracies Buchanan saw it as betrayal to American workers and manufacturing self reliance to produce things here at home. Trade should be done with partners that have the same values and respect for law that you have. Buchanan challenged Bush 1 in the GOP primary and scored some victories. Ross Perot ran against Bush 1's global trade agenda. Bill Clinton talked about the economy but his angle was to push for national health care (when he won he put Hillary, unelected, in charge of writing the law).

The 1992 presidential debate is where Perot talked about Bush 1's policies, which Bill Clinton wiggled but he too was committed to the same type policies (he signed NAFTA on 8 December 1993) and this is when Perot said if these trade polices go through, it will result in a great sucking sound of American Manufacturing jobs leaving the USA. I must confess instinctively I agreed with both Buchanan and Perot on the trade deals but I have to admit I voted for the neo-con Bush 1.

As I have said in (I don't know how many post), 30 years later, on these trade links with countries like China, and Russia to, making us too dependent on key supplies (think Medical during COVID-19) and energy has proven to be 100% correct. So my lay person geopolitical analysis, Trump's 2016 election n many ways can be traced back to decisions that were made during the Bush 1 and Clinton presidencies.
 
Northener said:
Totally agree.

And with regard to this:


I'm the the last one who is a pan Germanist let that be clear. Nevertheless also thanks to the US the BRD has developed to stabile democracy. Pacifism was the norm. And with regard to Putin's Russia they aimed until recent for negations and change through trade. But they saw Putin in the ugly face and made a major turn. When the Pax Americana is lowered because the isolationist tendencies are becoming prominent it's good that BRD fills the gap and stands firm against the neo czar.

The real problem we now in Europe have and that's way way more dangerous imo than pan-germanic (that has nearly zero support here) is that we have large sections of the populist right that are direct connected with the Kremlin. Quit absurd in earlier times the commies had such lines with the Kremlin.....now it's it's the fare right.

https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/27/ex-ba...ght-leader-manchurian-candidate-putin-support
https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/25/far-right-baudets-pro-russia-statements-raising-concerns-parliament
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/02/...tent-of-russian-influence-in-the-netherlands/
Click to expand...

not only the far right
here in Belgium the far left is still the biggest advocat of Putin

https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220225_97531341
 
bicicleur 2 said:
not only the far right
here in Belgium the far left is still the biggest advocat of Putin

https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220225_97531341
Click to expand...

The party's (FvD and PVV) who are at stake in the Netherlands and who support Putin have together 22 of the 150 seats. The PVV is the third party in our country. How much seats has the fare left (in casu the Belgian PVDA) in the Belgian senate?
 
A Pro-Putin German posted this on another forum. He believes Nazi Germany was defeated by Russians alone (what a ridiculous belief):

I'm quoting him:

"I think that our fight with Russia is even ridiculing all what the US have experienced in WWII. When they met exhausted German troops from the eastern Front in the west they were blown away and shocked. And Russians eventually blew our Wehrmacht and Waffen SS away. This are stages of sacrificing and dispair that noone that was not involved can at all assess. The western allies were essentially free riders of the Russian victory on us, kind of like Argentina that also declared Germany war, defeated Germany in WWII (it's intendendly exaggerated, but it hits the point). All this left on us Germans an ambigous and deep impression. It's not a Stockholm syndrome. The Russians are gone, no one is in Germany and they can never come back. (Russia never ever touched Germany before without a preceeding German attack.) But there also grew a respect for the Russians among Germans. I think, a very deep respect. The Russian performance in WWII is unparalleld. As a German nationalist I can say that this lesson will never be forgotten. Also, we owe our (partly) reunification the Russian agreement to that. The haunt on Russia as the loser of the Cold War since then by the USA and the NATO helpers is embarassing and unjust."

^^^
Even if we assume that what he claims about the lack of importance of American-British war effort is true (which is not), it still doesn't mean that Soviets = Russians.

Let's check ethnic composition of the Soviet Red Army. In last stages of the war (advance into "Germany Proper") Ukrainians were 1/3 of Red Army soldiers:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=121622

^^^ From that Axis History Forum dicussion, "Personnel of the Soviet Union's Army by ethnicity, by year":

https://i.imgur.com/RHXtzo8.png

RHXtzo8.png


And ethnic composition of the Red Army in 1943 vs. 1944 (historian Alexey Bezugolniy):


1st July 1943:


Russians 63,84 %
Ukrainians 11,6 %
Armanians 1,4 %
Georgians 1,17 %
Azerbaijanians 1,57 %
Uzbeks 4,44 %


1st July 1944:


Russians 51,78 %
Ukrainians 33,9 %
Armenians 0,81 %
Georgians 0,5 %
Azebaijanians 0,81 %
Uzbeks 1,25 %


^^^
Here is the explanation: "The dramatic increase of the percentage of Ukrainians is the most interesting thing, most likely being the result of the consription from the liberated territory of Ukraine during the year."

Give credit when credit is due. Ukrainians played a huge role in defeating Nazi Germany, and millions of them died fighting the Nazis.
 
@Palermo -- Buchanan has also written a number of historical works. He is not a primary researcher, but a very capable synthesizer.

In particular, I suggest his book on Churchill, which is very relevant to the events unfolding before us ==

[video]https://odysee.com/@Rienki:8/buchanan:5?r=5iRvxoCkz6EeyZv6utesvJtMKm7UQTmf[/video]

And though I have not read Buchanan's "A Republic, Not an Empire," published in 1999, he predicted the current crisis in Ukraine back then. Imagine that, a far-sighted Western politician!! This might be tedious to listen to, but here's a recording of somebody reading aloud from Chapter 2, "Courting Conflict with Russia." But I am listening as I write this. It isn't tedious. It's utterly prophetic ==

https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/Pat-NATO:4?r=5iRvxoCkz6EeyZv6utesvJtMKm7UQTmf
 
That German user also claimed:

"Russia never ever touched Germany before [World War 2] without a preceeding German attack"

^^^ Let's see, this was clearly before WW2 (when Prussia survived and did not end up as a province of Russian Empire only miraculously):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_House_of_Brandenburg

^^^
Russians even occupied K?nigsberg for ca. 6 years during that time, IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 303945 times.

Back
Top