Soviet Union ally with Germany ww2?

[morticore]

I feel that I am to mature for this "discussion"...

Please read yours post once more and figure out why it is totally without sense. Tell me where is this lie?

When Hitler and Stalin started playing (temporary in '39-'41) in the same team? I think after Stalin's offer was refused by the West.

 

[Doom88]

But the situation was vice versa, seriously I don't know where brits and americans get their history lessons from, it ridicouslous. Do you even know how Hitler became Fuhrer and gained German peoples support? THE BURNING OF THE REICHSTAG. Which was a conspiracy done by the Nazis themselves and blamed on the German communists. Hence Nazis hated communists.

This is not entirely accurate. The Burning of the Reichstag was not an 'inside job' done by the Germans. From David Gordon, an Austrian economist and historian:

 

[Zakarro]

This is not entirely accurate. The Burning of the Reichstag was not an 'inside job' done by the Germans. From David Gordon, an Austrian economist and historian:



The Germans were not truthful about the matter, however. When they first heard about the fire, it was automatically assumed to have been done by the Communists. So, the Germans launched a political-propaganda campaign to go after Communists.

When the facts came out that it was actually a lone arsonist - they didn't report that and still went with the "Communists burned down the Reichstag".

So.. not a falseflag, but an arson.

SOrry but I do not believe that.

 

[Zakarro]

I feel that I am to mature for this "discussion"...

Please read yours post once more and figure out why it is totally without sense. Tell me where is this lie?

When Hitler and Stalin started playing (temporary in '39-'41) in the same team? I think after Stalin's offer was refused by the West.

39-41, enlighten me with your maturity.......

 

[aaz777]

for those who think that evil USSR united with Germany

 

[morticore]

What about the secret protocol

 

[Siegertyp]

for those who think that evil USSR united with Germany

I think it is a bit more complicated.

A "normal" non-agression pact is passive. Simplified: "I don't attack you, you don't attack me." The Hitler-Stalin pact was of a more active nature. For example, Germany and the Soviet Union cooperated during the invasion of poland.

Furthermore, Stalin tried as late as October 1940 to join the Axis with Germany and Japan. Fact is: the de-facto alliance was not only manifested in the non-angression treaty, but also in financial and economics agreements, resulting in huge supplies of strategic raw materials like oil, petrol, rubber, timber and wheat by the Soviets. Without these supplies, even the Battle of France would have been pretty much impossible.

It should be remembered hat the Soviet Union entered WW2 as an agressor. Stalin annexed the Baltics and Moldova, he invaded Finland, and joined Hitler in invading Poland. Later, Hitler betrayed his partner Stalin. That does not in retrospective whitewash the Soviet agression.

Joint German-Soviet victory parade in Brest, 23.09.1939:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wsp%C3%B3lna_parada.jpg[/URL]

http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2011/12/sn-coop01s.jpg[url]http://www.studiolum.com/wang/brest/brest-1939-german-soviet-fraternizing-04.jpg[/URL]

Soviet-Nazi victory parade in Poland, 1939 - YouTube

 

[aaz777]

I think it is a bit more complicated.

A "normal" non-agression pact is passive. Simplified: "I don't attack you, you don't attack me." The Hitler-Stalin pact was of a more active nature. For example, Germany and the Soviet Union cooperated during the invasion of poland.

oh.
So, in 1938 Poland atacked Czechoslovakia together with Germany and cooperated, its a passive non agression?
Then England came and approved this invading, the famous Munich agreement, also just passive non agression? Completely nothing bad, peaceful countries?

In 17 days after German atack on Poland, when polish army was almost destroyed and polish government went to London, left its fighting people, USSR returned his territories of western Belorussia and Ukraine that Poland took in 1920's. Bloody occupation, evil USSR invaded poor Poland, Stalin=Hitler, communism=nazism.. yeah, great logic. Double standarts are so double.

And there wasnt completely any fights/battles between soviets and poles, red army just came and took the territories. If USSR wouldnt do this, Nazi Germany would capture them. So instead of soviet occupation you would get nazi. I hope that even you dont think that nazi occupation was the same, so complaining about this sounds very weird.

btw, the Soviet Union was the only country that did not agree with Munich pact...

 

[Adenru]

What about the secret protocol

I don't see anyhting bad or shameful about this pact nor about any secret protocols which for some reason are no secret for anyone.
What was the alternative? Wage war USSR wasn't still prepared for and drown all that part of Europe in blood and blast it into rubble? Under those circumstances third option was not available, at last it helped to postpone the war.
Seems the most reasonable, wise and least bloodsheding decision for everyone.

 

[Siegertyp]

oh.
So, in 1938 Poland atacked Czechoslovakia together with Germany and cooperated, its a passive non agression?
Then England came and approved this invading, the famous Munich agreement, also just passive non agression? Completely nothing bad, peaceful countries?

I beg to differ.
The Munich Treaty was a severe mistake by Britain, France, Poland and Hungary and a extremely disturbing violation of international law. However, don't mix the Munich treaty with any previous pacts, it was neither part of those pacts nor resulted it from them.

The Hitler-Stalin pact went further that the Munich Agreement. Also, bear in mind the Soviet-German financial and economics agreements that were based on the Hitler-Stalin pact.

And as I said before: Stalin even wished to join the Axis as late as Ocober 1940. Your nice meme suggests that the poor Soviet Union (1939: Hey, Russia, do you want to be friends - mmm, OK") was somehow coaxed or put under pressure by the Germans to sign the pact, while in reality Stalin took the initiative. Don't distort the facts there.

In 17 days after German attack on Poland, when polish army was almost destroyed and polish government went to London, left its fighting people, USSR returned his territories of western Belorussia and Ukraine that Poland took in 1920's. Bloody occupation, evil USSR invaded poor Poland, Stalin=Hitler, communism=nazism.. yeah, great logic. Double standarts are so double.

You are wrong.

1) To quote the Historian Leszek Moczulski: "on 17 September 1939, the Polish Army was still bigger than most European armies and strong enough to fight the Wehrmacht for a long time." It was intended to fight the German army in the rough terrain of the Romanian bridgehead until at least the winter. That is not unreasonable considering the German losses in tanks and planes.

2) The Polish government fled Poland AFTER the Soviet attack, not before, as you claim. And the reason why it left Poland WAS the Soviet attack. Before that, it was if full control of the remaining provinces, even the schools were still open.

3) Do you think an attack on a sovereign state is not an act of aggression if some time in the past parts of the assaulted state belonged to the attacker? Is that also your justification for the Soviet annexation of the Baltics and the war Stalin started against Finland? To stretch your logic a bit here, would you agree to an invasion of the Bundeswehr in Russia's Kaliningrad district, because that part for centuries belonged to Germany?

And there wasnt completely any fights/battles between soviets and poles, red army just came and took the territories.

That does not make the Soviet attack any better. It robbed the Poles of all resources left to fight the Germans by themselves.
Also: completely any fighting? Do you think the battles of Vilnius and Grodno never happened? More than 7.000 Polish soldiers were not killed in combat by the Red Army?

If USSR wouldnt do this, Nazi Germany would capture them. So instead of soviet occupation you would get nazi. I hope that even you dont think that nazi occupation was the same, so complaining about this sounds very weird.

I said on a different occasion that I do differ between between those regimes.
Still, you make it sound as if the Soviets did the Polish a big favor by waging war against them, occupying their territory, breaking the terms of surrender, killing more than 22.000 Polish officers, policemen and civilians in Katyn, and deporting hundreds of thousand Polish citizens to Siberia. All in all modern historians estimate that 150.000 Polish civilians were killed during the first Soviet occupation.
I hope - to borrow that phrase - that even you do not really want to deny the Soviet crimes. Or do you?

 

[Siegertyp]

I don't see anyhting bad or shameful about this pact nor about any secret protocols which for some reason are no secret for anyone.
What was the alternative? Wage war USSR wasn't still prepared for and drown all that part of Europe in blood and blast it into rubble? Under those circumstances third option was not available, at last it helped to postpone the war.
Seems the most reasonable, wise and least bloodsheding decision for everyone.

Oh really? So attacking and annexing independent states is neither bad nor shameful? That's a rather peculiar moral justification. Furthermore, the argument of war prevention is quite questionable because later the Soviet Union supplied Germany with large quanitites of strategic raw material. Without these supplies, Germany would have been incapable of attacking France, let alone the USSR.

And the alternatives? One alternative would be to join other alliances.
Or to help other states to defend themselves, thus securing a buffer area and protecting the USSR's own territory without becoming directly involved.

 

[morticore]

oh.
So, in 1938 Poland atacked Czechoslovakia together with Germany and cooperated, its a passive non agression?

Taking Zaolzie in 1938 is in my opinion SHAMEFUL decision of Polish government and even fact that Czechs occupied this territory from 1920 can't expain this. But you are wrong, this operation was not designed in cooperation with Germany, there wasn't any international treaty about it.

In 17 days after German atack on Poland, when polish army was almost destroyed and polish government went to London, left its fighting people, USSR returned his territories of western Belorussia and Ukraine that Poland took in 1920's. Bloody occupation, evil USSR invaded poor Poland, Stalin=Hitler, communism=nazism.. yeah, great logic. Double standarts are so double.

You are wrong about of Polish Army at day of 17. September, Siegertyp wrote already more about that. There was still enough of reorganized units to effectively resist in wait for promised help from the France and England that wouldn't ever came... In matter of territories taken by Poland in 1920 they were much smaller than area occupied by USSR in 1939 so it is agression. Agression without declaration of war.

And there wasnt completely any fights/battles between soviets and poles, red army just came and took the territories. If USSR wouldnt do this, Nazi Germany would capture them. So instead of soviet occupation you would get nazi. I hope that even you dont think that nazi occupation was the same, so complaining about this sounds very weird.

So without any battle Polish Army burned some Soviet tanks, interesting
Polish forces after unexpected arrival of Red Army get confusing order: do not fight with Soviets until they become agressive and start evacuation of troops to Hungary or Romania. Waging war on two fronts would be unnecessary bloodshed. As Soviets tried to stop and capture Poles, there started local figts, often on pretty large scale - Szack, Wytyczno. About siege of Grodno and Vilnius said Siegertyp.

Without Soviet intervention in 1939 you would't have status of our enemy and later the "ally of our allies". Indeed nazi occupation was different from Soviet but I would not dare to say what was lesser evil...

 

[Adenru]

I beg to differ.

And as I said before: Stalin even wished to join the Axis as late as Ocober 1940. Your nice meme suggests that the poor Soviet Union (1939: Hey, Russia, do you want to be friends - mmm, OK") was somehow coaxed or put under pressure by the Germans to sign the pact, while in reality Stalin took the initiative. Don't distort the facts there.

Nobody agreed for Stalin's proposition, USSR stayed one on one, face to face with Germany with no allies or help to expect. As I said , that pact was a very wise decision, I'd do the same if I was Stalin. Such is politics, sometimes you have to shake hands with your geopolitical enemies, make treaties with them, cooperate and even make joint parades (*cought* 1945 *cough*)

You are wrong.

1) To quote the Historian Leszek Moczulski: "on 17 September 1939, the Polish Army was still bigger than most European armies and strong enough to fight the Wehrmacht for a long time." It was intended to fight the German army in the rough terrain of the Romanian bridgehead until at least the winter. That is not unreasonable considering the German losses in tanks and planes.

If size mattered everyone would speak Chinese.
As you may know or may not know (you do, I'll get to the part you don't know below) Poland had a defence agreement with France (this is the part you probably don't know, very little people know about it) France did make an advancement into German territory but on 12th of September they decided to withdraw forces. There could have been only one reason for this - they estimated perfomance against Germans of the very same people who bravely participated in Partition of Czechoslovakiaand decided they won't win this war.
Such case, historical facts are against this crazy speculation.

2) The Polish government fled Poland AFTER the Soviet attack, not before, as you claim. And the reason why it left Poland WAS the Soviet attack. Before that, it was if full control of the remaining provinces, even the schools were still open.

Not they ran away THE SAME MOMENT.
Some years ago I read an article which was called "Poland the Germany's ally in WW2". Familiar, isn't it? No, it wasn't about Poland signing any "secret" treaties but rather analisis of actions of Polish government which benefetit Germans a lot during whole WW2, there was a very interesting statistics about oficer/soldier deth ratio and it was written Polish elite was fleeing dying country even before USSR invaded, won't insist it's truth though and I'd never created thread like this, why? Because it would be a troll thread even though I'd bring inarguable historical facts with me but I will never do so.

Would you like to know why? Ever seen a real politian, not a clown? Look at Putin. Putin never calls names, never blames anyone, never makes harsh statements, in fact he doesn't talk much at all but rather makes hints of what he can do and what his policy is. Russia and Finland, there was a lot of bad blood between, both sides can dig a lot on each other but instead of making pitiful accusations and look pathetic the decision was to bury crap and have good relationship and benefit on it. This is possible because Finland has real pliticians and not clowns willing to win some votes in short term.

3) Do you think an attack on a sovereign state is not an act of aggression if some time in the past parts of the assaulted state belonged to the attacker? Is that also your justification for the Soviet annexation of the Baltics and the war Stalin started against Finland? To stretch your logic a bit here, would you agree to an invasion of the Bundeswehr in Russia's Kaliningrad district, because that part for centuries belonged to Germany?


That does not make the Soviet attack any better. It robbed the Poles of all resources left to fight the Germans by themselves.
Also: completely any fighting? Do you think the battles of Vilnius and Grodno never happened? More than 7.000 Polish soldiers were not killed in combat by the Red Army?

For this we'll have to remove the favourite way of history falsification - taking an isolated moment ignoring everything else related to it. Let's look at big picture.
Since Poland used collapse of the Russian Empire and annexed part of it's territory, that was, of course, totally justified in your eyes.
Poland prevented any possible anti-Hitler pacts with Europe. This is not taken in account too.
In 1939 Stalin had two choices left:
1. Let Hitler get whole Poland including the part Poland annexed previously.
2. Attack.
Not real choice, honestly.
By the way, England and France did not declare war on Soviet Union. Think about why.

Baltics are situated in very important geopolitical place, this is the reason they were annexed in the first place, there they were, newly formed, enjoying their brief period of inpedence and like all freshly seceded national states they weren't exactly friendly, not at all.
Sitting in tatal safely in warm chair on inormous bottom it's easy to accuse someone, hwoever there was a war going on, and enemy would attack soon ("blah-blah Stalin wasn't prepared". Stalin was getting ready for this since he got into power), there were no place for gallontry, it's kill or be killed.

I wouldn't want to sound cruel and disrespectful, death is death, but since you brought up this topic, what's the 7000 in scale of WW? How many Poles fought in Wermacht?
7000 death is a tragedy, 26 000 000 deaths - statistics... Shall I blame these deaths on Poland for not letting anti-Hitler coalition happen?
Polish imperial ambitions brought it on Polish people, blame government and those who got them to power.

 

[Adenru]

Oh really? So attacking and annexing independent states is neither bad nor shameful? That's a rather peculiar moral justification. Furthermore, the argument of war prevention is quite questionable because later the Soviet Union supplied Germany with large quanitites of strategic raw material. Without these supplies, Germany would have been incapable of attacking France, let alone the USSR.

And the alternatives? One alternative would be to join other alliances.
Or to help other states to defend themselves, thus securing a buffer area and protecting the USSR's own territory without becoming directly involved.

Coutries like this cannot be independent, now at war. There is no moral justification in war or politics, there are only national interest and survival.
Lol for supplying and another historical falsification about Hitler being stronger than Poland nad France combined but would lose to them individually.
Please give more information about supplying, I'm very interested to know what did supplies were traded for, when did it start and why'd Stalin be making Hitler more powerful instead of himself.

 

[Siegertyp]

Unfortunately, my limited time does not allow to appropriately adress all the points you mentioned, especially as that would stray too much from the topic of the thread.

Nobody agreed for Stalin's proposition, USSR stayed one on one, face to face with Germany with no allies or help to expect.

While, although as far as I see it, Stalin's position in the negotiations for a pact between Britain, France and the USSR were more realistic than Chamberlain's, the negotiations stalled for various reasons. And to say as a consequence a pact with Hitler was the only remaining option on the table is wrong.

Not they ran away THE SAME MOMENT.

Get your facts straight. The Soviet Union invaded in the morning of September 17th. As a result of that invasion, the Polish government fled in the evening of September 17th to Romania. Considering the Katyn massacre, that even in retrospective was a smart move.

Some years ago I read an article which was called "Poland the Germany's ally in WW2".

Well, I recently saw a movie about a Nazi colony on the moon. Must have been from the same author.

Ever seen a real politian, not a clown? Look at Putin.

Only because you mentioned him: Putin pretty much qualifies as a clown to me because of his ridiculous machismo behavior, like pretending to shoot a wild tiger when in reality it was a drugged zoo animal. Nevertheless, if you are a supporter of Putin, then you should acknowledge what he wrote in a "Letter to Poles" in the daily 'Gazeta Wyborcza' about the Hitler-Stalin pact on Mon, 31 Aug 2009:
The pact, "without any doubts can be condemned with full justification."

Let's look at big picture.
Since Poland used collapse of the Russian Empire and annexed part of it's territory, that was, of course, totally justified in your eyes.

Don't accuse me of justifying anything that I did not expressely said, please.
Parts of that Russian Empire years before belonged to the Polish Kingdom which Russia and Prussia divided among themselves in 1772, 1793 and 1795. You can get on and on looking into the past, until the Migration Period of 400/800 AD, but that's not very meaningful. Somewhere you have to draw a line. To me, a bilateral treaty recognising borders is such a line. The USSR and Poland had such a treaty, and the USSR violated it. That is an act of aggression, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it.

And again, if you think that a military intervention is justified because a part of an attacked state once belonged to an attacker, then today you'd have to be in favor of a Bundeswehr intervention in Russia's Kaliningrad area. That's your logic at work here, not mine.

Baltics are situated in very important geopolitical place

That is a weak explanation even for an occupation, but is expecially no justification for an annexation, let alone for deporting and murdering at least tens of thousands of Baltic civilians. It doesn't explain why the Baltics were annexed and Finland attacked AFTER the Hitler-Stalin pact. The real reason is an imperialist expansion: Stalin wanted to regain all the territories that were part of the Russian Empire, plus some more.

7000 death is a tragedy, 26 000 000 deaths - statistics... [...]
Polish imperial ambitions brought it on Polish people, blame government and those who got them to power.

The losses of the USSR in WW2 could have been avoided if Stalin would have supported Poland to resist Germany, instead of robbing the Poles of any remaining basis for resistance and furthermore strengthen Hitler by supplying strategic raw material.
Also if the Polish government was like you claimed, they could easily have avoided a lot of trouble and agreed to Hitler's proposal of 1938 to jointly attack the Soviet Union together with Germany and get a large part of the Ukraine as a 'reward'.

There is no moral justification in war or politics, there are only national interest and survival.

Perhaps you do not know, but that's pretty much exactly what Hitler said in 'Mein Kampf' and how he justified the fight for the "Lebensraum im Osten" (living space in the east).
It is deeply flawed, factually and morally. Human Rights and international law has to be respected and upheld.

Please give more information about supplying, I'm very interested to know what did supplies were traded for, when did it start and why'd Stalin be making Hitler more powerful instead of himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_%281939%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)



To summarize and get a bit back to the topic of the thread: Hitler and Stalin were not de-jure, but de-facto allies in 1939/1940.

This alliance was manifested in:

- the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 23 August 1939,
- the military cooperation of September 1939,
- the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation on 28 September 1939,
- the addendum to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on 8 October 1939,
- the German–Soviet Credit Agreement on 19 August 1939,
- the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement on 11 February 1940,
- the negotiations by Molotov to join the Tripartite pact (Axis) until they were abandoned by Hitler in November 1940 (the de-jure alliance was not signed only because of Hitler, not because of Stalin),
- economics agreement supplementing the Commercial Agreement, 10 January 1941


Now to the hypothetical part of this thread, if Germany and the USSR would have jointly defeated Britain: I see only two possible routes to invade the USA:

1) via Island and Greenland through Newfoundland
2) via the Bering Strait, Alaska, Canada.

But it is hard to imagine that, even if there were short time successes, the extensive supply routes could be sustained for a longer time.

 

[bier]

I beg to differ.
The Munich Treaty was a severe mistake by Britain, France, Poland and Hungary and a extremely disturbing violation of international law. However, don't mix the Munich treaty with any previous pacts, it was neither part of those pacts nor resulted it from them.

At least it freed the Sudetendeutschen from a state they didn't want to be part of. Also given the genocide in 45 i can understand the Sudetendeutschen wanted to get out of Czechoslovakia as early as 38.

 

[Perun58]

At least it freed the Sudetendeutschen from a state they didn't want to be part of. Also given the genocide in 45 i can understand the Sudetendeutschen wanted to get out of Czechoslovakia as early as 38.

Borders were opened in 1938. Nobody was holding them here if we were so bad on them. Many Germans died during badly and quickly organized expulsion. To 330 000 Czechoslovakians who died in Protektorat B

 

[Adenru]

While, although as far as I see it, Stalin's position in the negotiations for a pact between Britain, France and the USSR were more realistic than Chamberlain's, the negotiations stalled for various reasons. And to say as a consequence a pact with Hitler was the only remaining option on the table is wrong.

Those reason were situated right between USSR and Germany. Who fais at diplomacy face the consequances of their failure with guns.

Get your facts straight. The Soviet Union invaded in the morning of September 17th. As a result of that invasion, the Polish government fled in the evening of September 17th to Romania. Considering the Katyn massacre, that even in retrospective was a smart move.

What's the reason for using so many wors to say "cowardice"?
Stalin, for instance, when Germans came very close to Moscow stayed where he was and inspires soldiers with speech instead of everything he supposedly had plundered all these years, take his closest comrades and ran to South America.
The most ambitious and imperialistic people turned out to be the most chicken-hearted. Nothing new here.

Katyn btw, is the biggest gift and propagandist weapon Poland gave to Hitler, they couldn't wait with it a bit, could they? They accepted proposal to help Hitler in his struggle.

Well, I recently saw a movie about a Nazi colony on the moon. Must have been from the same author.

Ignorance is strength. In your circle you develop only one point nitpicking around isolated events, however when you go somewhere else presenting your views you have to face people who knows how things look from another angle. This is part of being responsible.

Only because you mentioned him: Putin pretty much qualifies as a clown to me because of his ridiculous machismo behavior, like pretending to shoot a wild tiger when in reality it was a drugged zoo animal. Nevertheless, if you are a supporter of Putin, then you should acknowledge what he wrote in a "Letter to Poles" in the daily 'Gazeta Wyborcza' about the Hitler-Stalin pact on Mon, 31 Aug 2009:
The pact, "without any doubts can be condemned with full justification."

I did not say I like Putin, in fact, I never voted for him, my personal opinion on him is irrelevant, I took just because everbody knows him (not bad for a clown?), his populism sometimes goes too far but nevertheless, but he does fallow national interests and it does not matter wether he does it out of pure heart (I'm to cynical to believe anything like this) or from personal interests, it does not matter because he's way past the point of no return and will do best for nation no matter what.
As far as I remember in 2009 in Poland Putin was confronted by clowns with similar accusations for USSR starting WW2 and this famous pact, clowns repeated their cheap propagana so many times that actually believed own lies. He did not bash and accused anyone, especially Poland, although he made it clear he can, just made a short speech about world did exists before that pact and also existed outside Poland while staying as neutral as possible trying to to harm anyone's feeling. Well, he always gives chance of partnership to anyone no matter how hostile that anyone is towards him.
Words do not matter, doings are.

Don't accuse me of justifying anything that I did not expressely said, please.
Parts of that Russian Empire years before belonged to the Polish Kingdom which Russia and Prussia divided among themselves in 1772, 1793 and 1795. You can get on and on looking into the past, until the Migration Period of 400/800 AD, but that's not very meaningful. Somewhere you have to draw a line. To me, a bilateral treaty recognising borders is such a line. The USSR and Poland had such a treaty, and the USSR violated it. That is an act of aggression, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it.

And again, if you think that a military intervention is justified because a part of an attacked state once belonged to an attacker, then today you'd have to be in favor of a Bundeswehr intervention in Russia's Kaliningrad area. That's your logic at work here, not mine.

If it's not meaningful to you than don't mention it. Polish government wanted to restore their Empire from centuries before but overestimated their abilities and failed misarably. It is very possible than annexations of Galicia and Wolyn was a mistake, they brought nothing but problems (for everyone), whom those regions belong to can be a long and pointless debate, I really do not care about them so I won't even try.

 

[morticore]

I wouldn't want to sound cruel and disrespectful, death is death, but since you brought up this topic, what's the 7000 in scale of WW? How many Poles fought in Wermacht?
7000 death is a tragedy, 26 000 000 deaths - statistics...

I woul'd like to say only, that comparing casualties of USSR from whole war with number of Polish soldiers killed in fight against Red Army in 1939 can't be a serious argument in discussion. I think that 26 millions: 6 millions is a major difference...

And how many Poles fought in Wehrmacht? I believe this is also offtopic question, I could ask how many citizens of Soviet union fought in ROA, RONA and Ostlegionen?

 

[Siegertyp]

Yes there were big casualties during the expulsion, but as I said - Germans should be glad that this is what happened. 90% of them could have been executed for a treason.

I see that defending ethnic cleansing is still a thing in rural areas of the Czech Republic. I can also see why you said in an other thread that Prague is different to other parts of the Czech Republic. As I saw from my visits to Prague and my talks with its residents, unlike certain rural areas Prague has arrived in the 21st century.

In the year 1965, the bishops of Poland were already much ahead of you. In a letter of reconciliation they wrote: "We forgive and ask for forgiveness".

That is a much better spirit.