Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

^^^
Germans did not want to give back to Poland even one inch of land which they had stolen from us in 1772-1795 & 1815 Partitions.

Even Greater Poland - the core region of Poland (historically) - would have remained under German occupation, if not our uprising:


 
Most Germans who lived in my region - Posen Province - were descended from religious refugees who came here in the 1500s-1600s.
Believe it or not, but Poland - despite being mainly Catholic - was accepting Protestant refugees who fled persecution by the Habsburgs.
Descendants of these Germans, who found refuge in my region, later turned against my people. And they were "Nazi 5th Column" in 1939.
It is only historical justice, that those traitors were expelled from my land in 1945.
 
Last edited:
I only hope that the refugees Germany has been taking during the last decades, will one day also turn against Native Germans.

They will then feel their own medicine - what we felt when Polish Germans betrayed and turned against the native ethnic Poles.
 
At least historically Poland learned a lesson, what can happen if you allow immigration, or take refugees, from cultures which are too different than your own. This is why now we are more selective. We allow Ukrainians in, because we know that they are compatible.

I am pro-multiculturalism, but as long as all co-existing cultures are compatible, and all citizens are loyal to the state.
 
Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians - are all compatible with each other.

Czechs and Slovaks are their own thing - let them reunite as Czechoslovakia, or perhaps add Hungary too.
 
You are delusional, the Polish Corridor was given to Poland first of all on ethnic grounds - it had a clear Polish majority over entire history, politically was equally Anti-German, it voted for the Polish Party (Polnische Fraktion, later Polenpartei) in all elections to Reichstag between 1867 and 1912.

The problem is indeed not ethnicity, I agree with you. The problem was that it cut East Prussia off, while giving the Poles no solid access to the sea anyway, for which they needed Danzig. So nothing was really solved: Germany had a problem with its Eastern province of East Prussia, Poland had no port city it wanted, and to take Danzig from Germany was just an injust action.

Therefore the only good solution to this conflict would have been an alliance of Germany and Poland, which would have allowed the Germans free land traffic, and to turn Danzig back to Germany, but give the Poles favourable conditions for using it. At that time, Britain said to Poland that any deal with Germany would have left it to the mercy of Germany - no support afterwards. And that's something the proud Poles could never accept, to be at the full mercy of Germany and cut off from their Western allies. They rather wanted to succeed on the battlefield, to gain even more.
That way no compromise was reached and what came next was the start of World War II with fights in Danzig.

From an ethnic perspective, I agree with you, the Polish corridor was rightly given to Poland. But the problem caused by this, the cutting off of East Prussia, could only be solved peacefully with an alliance - with the consequences mentioned = the English would have given no guarantees. Essentially Poland would have been completely on its own, probably even considered hostile by the English, would have become completely dependent from Germany. Therefore both sides chose confrontation, first diplomatically, then Germany attacked, causing WWII.

It was, generally speaking, a very unpleasant and hard to resolve situation and now we know what came out of it. Nowadays people tend to talk about the "2nd World War" as if it was always a fixed thing. No it wasn't. There were various red lines crossed by different sides at different times, and every transgression caused a new level of escalation.

This is, just like it was in World War I, what makes conflicts which affect various nations, big players and alliances, so difficult and dangerous. It can get out of hand very quickly.

Which is why I always say: Don't make the same mistakes a 2nd time. The only mistake the Western allies made with Germany after World War I, is, that they have waited so long for giving the Germans what they wanted all along. Why needed there to be a Hitler to get it? There were democratically elected Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Liberals and others around, which just wanted the same and radical elements only profited from the fact that Germans were not getting what was rightfully theirs.

Now some conclude from World War I or II, that you have to be even harsher with a so called aggressor, but there is no proof that this prevents a war, even on the contrary, it causes wars. And it makes, if anything, if assuming an evil dictator, if inventing an evil dictator, the escalation all the easier to justify for himself, for his administration, his people and allies.

If people, like this senior citizen Biden, talk like they do, act like they do, they do nothing to prevent conflict and escalation, but cause it. He did so all along, since the start of his presidency, by doing nothing diplomatically, but only arming up Ukraine and backing up its aggressive claims and policy against Russia.

Poking a strong opponent all the time and saying, "he will beat me, he will beat me, you will see, he is a brutal aggressor..." What is this? A bad joke? Why not stopping poking to begin with? Probably because another big guy in the background says: "You have the right to poke him, he is a bad guy, just poke him. If he gets aggressive, we will help, we want to beat him up anyway and you will come out even stronger than before..."

That's the situation in Ukraine, that's the "American policy" there. They caused the conflict.

If someone wants to de-escalate and prevent war, like the Europeans wanted, start working on a diplomatic compromise with which both sides can live with. That would have been reasonable, but not for the American "regime changers".

Humiliating big powers and nations, for no good reason but hate and arrogance, the greed for even more total power, is no good choice. That's something the USA should have learned from history. Russia was willing to compromise, willing to become a Western ally, but the USA, people like Biden in particular did block them. That was a grave mistake, there was absolutely no justice or reason in what the USA did.
 
If Austria wants to reunite with Germany, I would not oppose it either.

Poland had no port city it wanted


Poland solved that problem by building the city of Gdynia from scratch.
 
The problem was that it cut East Prussia off

Alaska is also cut off from the rest of the United States, but Americans are not invading Canada because of it...


Also let's remember that East Prussia was cut off from all other German lands during most of its history.
 
Riverman,

Timothy Snyder nailed it - he described exactly what were the actual causes of WW2 in his book:

Some excerpts from one of reviews of Snyder's book "Black Earth":

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/251753/black-earth-by-timothy-snyder/

"(...) One of the most unusual features of Timothy Snyder?s Black Earth, writes Christopher R. Browning in his New York Review of Books review, is the many pages Snyder devotes to Poland, Zionism, and Palestine. At the center of this story is the short-lived alliance between the Polish government and the Zionist Revisionist Movement during the late 1930s, explored in the book?s first four chapters (the third titled ?The Promise of Palestine?) and revisited in the conclusion. After Marshal J?zef Piłsudski?s death, the ruling circles in Poland advocated solving the country?s so-called Jewish problem through the emigration of a large part of the Jewish population (estimated at about 3 million on the eve of the war). For that purpose, Snyder recounts, the Polish government lent public support to Revisionist Zionist leaders and paramilitary groups and even financed and trained them. Their hope was that these Jews would wage a campaign of resistance and terror against the British mandatory authorities in Palestine and establish a Jewish state open to large-scale Jewish emigration.

Why is the history of Revisionist Zionism and their Polish supporters so central to a book that claims we have misunderstood the Holocaust and purports to offer a new explanation for it? The Polish-Zionist Revisionist alliance is in fact so central to Snyder?s account that the four main Zionist Revisionist protagonists in his story?Vladimir Jabotinsky, Avraham Stern, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin?are mentioned in the book more often than Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill combined.

One place to start is by situating Snyder?s discussion of Revisionist Zionism within its context in the book, namely an alliance that never materialized between Germany and Poland. As Snyder tells us, Adolf Hitler had initially hoped to draw Poland into a joint war of aggression against the Soviet Union. After some negotiations, Polish leaders rejected Hitler?s overtures. They determined that maintaining the status quo in Europe would benefit Poland more than war and feared that they would become a German satellite state following the Soviet Union?s defeat. Snyder, however, proposes that Hitler?s dream of a Polish-German alliance failed not merely because of Poland?s political calculations but ultimately because of ideological divisions. The failure to reach an agreement and the ensuing German invasion of Poland, he writes, ?resulted from deep differences on the Jewish and Soviet questions that were shrouded for years by Polish diplomacy.? Snyder sums up these differences two pages later: 'The covert essence of German foreign policy in the late 1930s was the ambition to build a vast racial empire in eastern Europe; the covert essence of Polish foreign policy was to create a State of Israel in Palestine from the territories granted by the League of Nations mandate to the British Empire.' (...)"

^^^ It was not about Danzig. It was about Jews and about German Lebensraum in Eastern Europe. Just like Snyder wrote.

Note, that Israel indeed emerged in Palestine, so pre-war Polish rulers achieved their goal, athough it was a Pyrrhic victory.
 
And by the way - I think that the real covert essence of this war is the fight for Ukraine's natural resources in the Black Sea.

I posted a video about it before.

Several years ago huge deposits of oil and gas were discovered in Ukraine's territorial waters to the west & south of Crimea.
 
Therefore the only good solution to this conflict would have been an alliance of Germany and Poland

But as Snyder wrote:

"(...) One place to start is by situating Snyder?s discussion of Revisionist Zionism within its context in the book, namely an alliance that never materialized between Germany and Poland. As Snyder tells us, Adolf Hitler had initially hoped to draw Poland into a joint war of aggression against the Soviet Union. After some negotiations, Polish leaders rejected Hitler?s overtures. They determined that maintaining the status quo in Europe would benefit Poland more than war and feared that they would become a German satellite state following the Soviet Union?s defeat. Snyder, however, proposes that Hitler?s dream of a Polish-German alliance failed not merely because of Poland?s political calculations but ultimately because of ideological divisions. The failure to reach an agreement and the ensuing German invasion of Poland, he writes, ?resulted from deep differences on the Jewish and Soviet questions that were shrouded for years by Polish diplomacy.? (...)"

Snyder's thesis about "deep differences on the Jewish question" is unpopular in Germany because Germans want to dilute their guilt for the Holocaust. German revisionist nationalists would like to say that Poland had the same views about Jews, and that Poland would have carried out its own holocaust even if Germany did not occupy Poland. They like to claim that supposedly an average Pole was more antisemitic than an average German.


In reality, however, pre-war Polish government was friends with Jewish Zionists (as Snyder explained).
 
Alaska is also cut off from the rest of the United States, but Americans are not invading Canada because of it...


Also let's remember that East Prussia was cut off from all other German lands during most of its history.

First: Canada is a friendly state. You know how often they intervened in Latin America, when a state, democratic or not, was no vassal and opposed US American dominance.

Besides, the USA did invade Canada, they just failed on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

The USA tried, they failed, and came to terms with a friendly, English speaking and cultured neighbour.

It was not about Danzig. It was about Jews and about German Lebensraum in Eastern Europe.

It was Danzig, a solution for the corridor traffic and a potential treaty with Poland. The Anti-Semitism and Lebensraum ideology was a different thing. That was no reason for going to war with Poland at all. The main reason was that Germany and Poland couldn't come to terms over the issues and Poland considered Germany the first, the more dangerous enemy. That's what Dmowski wrote, if you ever have ever read him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dmowski

The Polish position, ideologically, always was that Germany is more dangerous, because its more advanced. So having to choice to first fight Germany, then Russia, they went for the first and this was even more likely with the back up by Britain and France. A support they would have lost, if coming to terms with Germany.

Like I said before: You have to distinguish between greater ideological frameworks and longer term goals on the one hand, and concrete conflicts and actions in the short-term on the other. Like Germany had wider plans, Russia has wider plans. But would they just have started a war out of nothing, if coming to terms peacefully? No! Rarely a country, even a militaristic one, prefers war over a peaceful solution. They might consider war being the continuation of policy by violent means, but its usually, all the time, the 2nd best option to any even half-way reasonable, civilised nation. Tribals might be different, at times, some ethnic groups too, but in the occidental context, I know barely a single case.

So having a situation, in which a peaceful diplomatic solution can reach acceptable outcomes, usually prevents a war. There are insane demands made by people, political leaders or states. But that's fairly obvious, easy to recognise. Its overall, fairly rare. Because even if someone wants a war, he usually wants an excuse to start it. Because being attacked is the best motivation to fight. Sometimes both sides can say that, like in this one, because the Ukrainians attacked Donbas, the Russians the rest of Ukraine...

Snyder, however, proposes that Hitler?s dream of a Polish-German alliance failed not merely because of Poland?s political calculations but ultimately because of ideological divisions. The failure to reach an agreement and the ensuing German invasion of Poland, he writes, ?resulted from deep differences on the Jewish and Soviet questions that were shrouded for years by Polish diplomacy.?

The conflict predates National Socialism and Anti-Semitism was definitely not the main reason why the alliance failed. Poland just wanted additional German territories, not being dependent from Germany, but rather ally up with far away Western powers, which would never claim neighbouring or own territories. They really thought they could win this war on their own, with the help of the Western powers. And like I wrote above, Dmowski and other Polish ideologists considered Germany more dangerous than the Soviet Union anyway.
 
And like I wrote above, Dmowski and other Polish ideologists considered Germany more dangerous than the Soviet Union anyway.

And they were correct.

Poland in 1939 was capable of defending itself against a Soviet invasion, if the Soviets invaded alone.

The poor performance of the Red Army in Finland showed that it was a "Potemkin village" at that time.
 
Polish-German relations were also friendly since 1933 until late 1938 perhaps.

They were better with Pilsudski than before or after. The main problem was that in both countries a political change happened: Hitler in Germany, Pilsudski dying in Poland. If either wouldn't have happened, they might have come to terms. But with both, it was impossible, because of the clearly anti-German course of the post-Pilsudski Polish governments and the obvious more aggressive stance of Hitlers Germany at the same time. Probably Germany could have achieved more, but "Hitler was in a hurry", to put it that way, which was one of the main problems of his character and actions. He lacked the reason and patience to work on safer and more humane solutions.

But that's the unfortunate past, which killed many of my relatives all around, from different sides and groups, under different circumstances.

We don't need something like that a 3rd time, even more it would be worse than the first two. That's why I'm absolutely in favour of a peace deal, a diplomatic solution as soon as possible. It can get out of hand.
 
Most Germans who lived in my region - Posen Province - were descended from religious refugees who came here in the 1500s-1600s.

Believe it or not, but Poland - despite being mainly Catholic - was accepting Protestant refugees who fled persecution by the Habsburgs.

^^^
There was more of religious tolerance in the Rzeczpospolita than elsewhere in Europe during that time period:

 
meanwhile somewhere in Orenburg Oblast....
На границе с Оренбуржьем задержали вагоны с большой партией пшеницы и сахара // On the Orenburg - Kazakhstan border detained wagons with a large batch of wheat and sugar


third World problems just begun


 
And by the way - I think that the real covert essence of this war is the fight for Ukraine's natural resources in the Black Sea.

I posted a video about it before.

Several years ago huge deposits of oil and gas were discovered in Ukraine's territorial waters to the west & south of Crimea.

Likewise, the Donetsk region is a major industrial center - steel and coal, including military industries. Azovstal in Mariupol is/was (before bombed by Russia) one of the largest steel mills in Europe. Harkiv has loads of strategic science, physics to radars.
 
I can imagine Russian stategists brainstorming pretexts for “special military operations” and leaking them to the crazies in the state media to gauge if that would cause a popular uprising or not. Are they as shrewd and ruthless as this? Yes.

Meanwhile, Novaya Gazeta (their editor-in-chief won the latest Nobel Peace Prize) stopped publishing because journalism is no more possible in Russia.
 

This thread has been viewed 300436 times.

Back
Top