Ukraine

[das_nut]

Syndicated columnist Richard Cohen brings up Hitler probably more than 50% of his columns. The two of you should have a conversation. There are some of us who live in 2014 and don't want to hear about the 1930's very much considering the circumstances are much different(nuclear war heads, for instance).

Circumstances are much different? A despotic leader of a great power who is relying on nationalism in order to prop himself up and has, so far, invaded two separate countries under the excuse that he's just protecting his own people?

I'm sorry, what year is it again?

 

[rainforests1]

Circumstances are much different? A despotic leader of a great power who is relying on nationalism in order to prop himself up and has, so far, invaded two separate countries under the excuse that he's just protecting his own people?

I'm sorry, what year is it again?

1.Hitler never had NATO to go up against.
2.If England and France had nuclear weapons, there's no reason to believe Hitler would have done anything.
3.Germany's military was much stronger than Russia's is today.

 

[Yokel]

Just like the Sudetenland!

Not quite. In 1938, the Soviet Union had not just overthrown the democratically elected government of Czechoslovakia (though, granted it did thirty years later).

In 2014, the European Soviet Union has just overthrown the democratically elected government of Ukraine, installing a puppet regime run by crooks.

 

[das_nut]

Not quite. In 1938, the Soviet Union had not just overthrown the democratically elected government of Czechoslovakia (though, granted it did thirty years later).

In 2014, the European Soviet Union has just overthrown the democratically elected government of Ukraine, installing a puppet regime run by crooks.

A vote carried out while a region is occupied by Russian troops, that turned out to be pro-Russian, could be considered an overthrow of the Crimean government.

Also, there's no such thing as the European Soviet Union. Your view of Europe seems a tad fantastical.

 

[das_nut]

1.Hitler never had NATO to go up against.

He had two great powers arguing that the invasion of Poland would result in war. Which it did.

There's plenty of non-NATO states that Russia could invade. Finland, Belarus, Moldova (the parts it hasn't occupied), Ukraine (the parts it hasn't occupied), Georgia (the parts it hasn't occupied), Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, etc...

2.If England and France had nuclear weapons, there's no reason to believe Hitler would have done anything.

Well, Hitler picked a war on several fronts, in one case stabbing an ally in the back (USSR), and ended up creating a war on the largest empire on earth (British) and the largest economy on earth.

So I wouldn't be so quick to assume he wouldn't continue to be stupid.

3.Germany's military was much stronger than Russia's is today.

And what do you base this on? If you look at the numbers, assuming Hitler thought he'd have to fight everyone, Germany's population of fighting-age men looked pretty pathetic compared to the forces that could be brought against him.

If you assume Hitler thought he'd get away with partitioning Poland just like he got away with the Sudetenland and the annexation of Austria, then it doesn't matter.

Now, Hitler is dead and gone. The question is what does Putin think, and how much can Putin control the nationalism he's unleashing? Does Putin assume if the annexation of the Crimea goes well, he can make the same type of play again? So far, Russia's aggressions (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine) have gone very well for distracting the Russian population.

My fear is, similar to the events before WWII, is that Putin is going to take one action too many, and will end up starting a major war. He actions, while arguably (very much so) beneficial to him in the short term, are more or less guaranteed to cause other countries to turn against him. It's quite frankly obvious to anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of history to realize that the Baltic states and Poland were going to go batsh-t crazy over this. With neighboring countries turning against Russia, it's going to be easy for him to play up more nationalistic fervor. That is unlikely to end well.

 

[Yokel]

Also, there's no such thing as the European Soviet Union. Your view of Europe seems a tad fantastical.

The EU is not Europe, it is however run like the Soviet Union. Even Gorbachev told the Eurocrats that but they refused to listen to him.

 

[Mischief]

Some posts in this thread are unintentionally hilarious.

 

[das_nut]

The EU is not Europe, it is however run like the Soviet Union. Even Gorbachev told the Eurocrats that but they refused to listen to him.

Explain how the EU is run like the SU.

 

[Yokel]

Explain how the EU is run like the SU.

Because it is run by a 'Politburo' of unelected Commissars.

 

[Blobbenstein]

perhaps unelected bureaucrats take over things sometimes, as they are more competent than politicians.

 

[rainforests1]

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do of me claiming 1939 France as a great power.

Some posts in this thread are unintentionally hilarious.

Normal people quote comments they disagree with, and refute them. For some reason, Mischief doesn't care for giving details.

 

[Mischief]

Normal people quote comments they disagree with, and refute them. For some reason, Mischief doesn't care for giving details.

Normal people address others directly, instead of making third person references.

 

[yakherder]

If Russia decides not to give a damn about the threat of sanctions, not only have we got nothing else on the table, but we also succeed in forcing them into an alliance of necessity with our adversaries just like we've been doing with North Korea.

How completely predictable.
http://www.nknews.org/2014/04/russia-signs-economic-development-protocol-with-north-korea/

Russia signs economic development protocol with North Korea
Moscow also says future trade with North Korea will also be conducted in Rubles

April 3rd, 2014

North Korea and Russia on Friday strengthened ties by signing an economic development protocol agreement with the aim of increasing annual bilateral trade to $1 billion by the year 2020.

The protocol was co-signed by the Minister for Development of the Russian Far East Alexander Galushka and the North Korean Minister of Foreign Trade Ri Ryong Nam following a five day Russian delegation visit to the Rason Sonbong area.

The protocol agreement outlined mutual economic interests between the two countries that include cooperation in trade, investment, transport, energy and natural resources, employment and interregional cooperation.

Russian officials in March stated an intention to explore new markets following the introduction of sanctions by the west over Russian action in Crimea, Russian news agency RIA Novosti said on Friday.

That, one expert said, may be why Russia is currently seeking to warm ties with North Korea.

“North Korea and Russia now have something in common; they are under international sanctions. They both share anti-Americanism, contempt to international laws, and pose military threat to neighbors,” said Leonid Petrov, a North Korea researcher at the Australia National University.

The Ministry for Development of the Russian Far East also announced Friday that following the protocal, all payments between the two countries would be settled in Roubles.

“It seems perfectly logical that international pariah states should use their own currencies for bilateral trade and investment projects rather than the currency of the state they both loathe,” Petrov said..

In addition to the protocol agreement Russia also discussed trilateral trade projects with North Korea.

The Ministry for Development of the Russian Far East said that it is eager to complete a trans-Siberian railway connection to South Korea that could allow Russian gas and electricity to be delivered through North Korea.

The Russian delegation, which comprised members of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Economic Development Ministry and individuals from Russian banking institutions and private companies, also announced their intentions to invest in the inter-Korean industrial park of Kaesong, currently only a joint venture between North and South Korea.

Minister for Development of the Russian Far East Alexander Galushka stressed that Moscow’s economic and development goals could only be achieved in military and political stability on the Peninsula could be maintained.

A further meeting between Russa and the DPRK was scheduled to take place in Vladivostok in June.

 

[das_nut]

Because it is run by a 'Politburo' of unelected Commissars.

A politburo requires a single party continuously running things, that doesn't appear to be the case in the EU.

There is an EU Commission, but there's also a EU parliament and an EU council. To ignore them is like claiming that the Federal US is Soviet because two of its primary branches are mostly or almost entirely non-elected (Executive and Judicial).

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do of me claiming 1939 France as a great power.

I'm not responsible for your lack of historical knowledge. But I'll try to educate you: A "Great Power" were the most powerful nations before the rise of the Superpowers (US and USSR) in the Cold War era. Commonly, in the intrawar period, France was considered a Great Power - along with Germany, UK, etc.

It's economy was larger than other nations considered Great Powers at the time (Italy, Japan), it's population was only a few million people smaller than the UK or Germany, it's military spending was slightly less than the UK.

You may still disagree that France was a great power in 1939, but your viewpoint is apparently shared by only a minority of historians.

 

[rainforests1]

How did the Franco-Prussian war go? I believe France lost very easily. In World War 1 France was on the winning side, but going by what I've read lost again to Germany easily when they did battle. As far as military might goes, France was closer to a country like Poland than they were to a country like England. I fear NATO much more than I ever would fear some England, France, and Poland alliance.

 

[Yokel]

A politburo requires a single party continuously running things, that doesn't appear to be the case in the EU.

There is an EU Commission, but there's also a EU parliament and an EU council. To ignore them is like claiming that the Federal US is Soviet because two of its primary branches are mostly or almost entirely non-elected (Executive and Judicial).

A subject for a different thread.

However the expansionist and imperialist tendencies of those running the EU are what has destabilised Ukraine.

 

[das_nut]

How did the Franco-Prussian war go? I believe France lost very easily. In World War 1 France was on the winning side, but going by what I've read lost again to Germany easily when they did battle. As far as military might goes, France was closer to a country like Poland than they were to a country like England. I fear NATO much more than I ever would fear some England, France, and Poland alliance.

By "lost to Germany", you mean put up enough of a resistance, even after being attacked from a direction they did not expect (since Germany violated the low countries' neutrality and invaded in that way) to ruin the German plans for a quick military victory - then continued to fight Germany to a standstill even after Germans controlled a fair amount of French industrial regions?

And still Hitler decided, after that disastrous war which he fought in, to attack almost everyone in WWII - even though Germany's economic situation was so much worse.

Which goes to show that a leader is not necessarily rational.

You may also want to look up my "favorite" despot of all times: Francisco Solano López. There's no rational reason on an international scale for him to start the War of the Triple Alliance. But he did, and destroyed his country (and lost his life) in the process.

 

[rainforests1]

I don't recall saying Hitler was rational. However, his original plan was for living space in the East. It was only after England and France declared war on Germany that Germany went West. After his agreement with Russia, he was willing to form an alliance with Russia as long as Russia went into Asia. The Russians were looking at Europe, Hitler didn't trust them, and decided Germany would attack. There's no reason to believe Germany wanted to attack "almost everyone"(we'll just pretend Europe is the only continent that exists).

However the expansionist and imperialist tendencies of those running the EU are what has destabilised Ukraine.

Mainstream sources aren't claiming this(even if it may be true). People like das_nut won't believe you.

 

[das_nut]

I don't recall saying Hitler was rational. However, his original plan was for living space in the East. It was only after England and France declared war on Germany that Germany went West. After his agreement with Russia, he was willing to form an alliance with Russia as long as Russia went into Asia. The Russians were looking at Europe, Hitler didn't trust them, and decided Germany would attack. There's no reason to believe Germany wanted to attack "almost everyone"(we'll just pretend Europe is the only continent that exists).

So in your map of the world, is Norway to the east of Germany? Is the United States in Eastern Europe? Because Germany declared war on them both without needing to.

Mainstream sources aren't claiming this(even if it may be true). People like das_nut won't believe you.

Mainstream sources aren't claiming that the Russians secretly replaced the Ukrainian population with robotic ducks (even if it may be true). Why won't people believe this?

 

[das_nut]

So I'm pretty sure that Rainforest1 isn't Putin's alt, since Putin seems to be flipping the middle finger to NATO.

Russian troops are still in an extended "exercise" near the eastern Ukrainian border.
Alleged Russian agents have been arrested in eastern Ukraine.
Oh, and now there are protests and calls for another separatist state. Russian flags are flying over parts of what are left of Ukraine.

But, hey, NATO, right?