4 What ifs

[discovery1]

Also when was Poland or Finland a part of Russia ?

Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.

When did the Poles start fighting the Russians again. I believe it was 1619 was it not? I mean we have heard here that a war isn't(that ones for you Lemur ) over until the tension between the waring factions are over have we not? In 1772 they removed Poland from the map. Then in 1815 they created the Polish congress under Russian rule. Finally in 1918 Poland once more was given nationhood status and in 1921 Russia once more attacked her. So according to the logic used on this debate Poland beat Russia even if it took a mere 400 years without the poles killing any russians to gain the final victory just as no Americans were killed at the time of our defeat.

[Browning]

So according to the logic used on this debate Poland beat Russia even if it took a mere 400 years without the poles killing any russians to gain the final victory just as no Americans were killed at the time of our defeat.

How do you see that Poland beat Russia?

During the 400 years mentioned by you, Poland (regarding the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1600s as "Poland") lost like 80% of its territory to Russia and the nation was decapitated.

The Kingdom of Poland, the Commonwealth of Both Nations is not there anymore and will never be, while Russia is there, as imperial and power hungry as ever.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How do you see that Poland beat Russia?

During the 400 years mentioned by you, Poland (regarding the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1600s as "Poland") lost like 80% of its territory to Russia and the nation was decapitated.

The Kingdom of Poland, the Commonwealth of Both Nations is not there anymore and will never be, while Russia is there, as imperial and power hungry as ever.

The same way people in the backroom see the US losing the Vietnam war.Russias aim was to take over all of Poland and they succeeded for a time but in the end they failed and Poland is once more a nation just as we failed to stop the North from taking the south and are blamed for it even though we had already left. Itseems to me that these two countries never lost their aggression towards eachother throughout that whole 400 year period. Sorry to drag backroom material into this place. But go check t out if you like.

[cegorach]

1.When did the Poles start fighting the Russians again. I believe it was 1619 was it not? I mean we have heard here that a war isn't(that ones for you Lemur ) over until the tension between the waring factions are over have we not?

2.In 1772 they removed Poland from the map.

3.Then in 1815 they created the Polish congress under Russian rule.

4.Finally in 1918 Poland once more was given nationhood status and in 1921 Russia once more attacked her.

5.So according to the logic used on this debate Poland beat Russia even if it took a mere 400 years without the poles killing any russians to gain the final victory just as no Americans were killed at the time of our defeat.

I agree, but must correct some mistakes ( I am such a person )

1. The war started around 1490 and lasted ( only cease-fire from time to time) to 1634 ( Smolensk re-gained by Poland).

Another one broke out in 1654 and lasted to 1667 (Polish defeat, Kiev and Smolensk to Russia).

Other wars were fought in 1768-70 ( Bar Confederacy), in 1792, 1794 and 1812 ( 100 000 Poles in Napoleon armies, they enter Moscow almost exactly 200 years later after the first 'visit' in 1610-12), 1830-31, 1863-64, 1919-20 and 1939-45.

2. It was the first partition, the last one was in 1795.

3. It was to 'reward' Russia, but didn't lasted for long.

4. The war started in 1919, Poland attacked to create several independent, allied states ( Belorussia, Ukraine, Lithuania), but ultimately was too weak to achieve it. Nonetheless it was the first defeat of the Red Army and saved Europe some serious troubles ( Russia would attack anyway).

5. I agree, they have borders from Ivan the Terrible's times

I am not anti-Russian, but I preferr to have Russia several houndreds kilometers away.

[Browning]

Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.

Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.

Arent we hearing this same sort of thing from radical Muslims ? They want Spain back and many other lands they once conquered.

[Browning]

Roger that.

I was just answering some comments that the Soviet agression 1939-40 on Poland, Finland, etc. was not an agression since these territories happened to be part of Russia prior to 1917.

In my book, it was just an unprovoked and unjustified landgrab.

[cegorach]

In my book, it was just an unprovoked and unjustified landgrab.[/QUOTE]

What is this book ? Maybe I could read it.
During my time here ( the UK) I have discovered that almost every book with some data about Poland is biased or wrong many times - sometimes these are worth less than fairy tales (at lest these are intentionally not real)

[Morat]

My favourite WWII "What if?" is to do with Britain. What if the UK had chosen to be neutral in WWII? It's certainly not that radical a suggestion. Hitler was far from unpopular in the mid to late 30s on both sides of the Atlantic. What if the British had decided that Hitler could be a tool to get rid of the greater menace, the Soviet Union? Then how do things stand? It opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

The defeat of Russia is now almost a certainty. Europe is pretty much left with a dominant Germany. The fun comes in the Pacific. The US had been badgering Japan for a while. What happens now though? With Britain neutral and nominally in the Germans camp, the US strategic position looks bleak indeed. Even with rapid militarization, could the US fight off the Japanese and Germans, while having to consider the possibility of the British becoming hostile? Or would be forced to climb down from its antagonistic Japanese policies?

[Franconicus]

My favourite WWII "What if?" is to do with Britain. What if the UK had chosen to be neutral in WWII? It's certainly not that radical a suggestion. Hitler was far from unpopular in the mid to late 30s on both sides of the Atlantic. What if the British had decided that Hitler could be a tool to get rid of the greater menace, the Soviet Union? Then how do things stand? It opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

The defeat of Russia is now almost a certainty. Europe is pretty much left with a dominant Germany. The fun comes in the Pacific. The US had been badgering Japan for a while. What happens now though? With Britain neutral and nominally in the Germans camp, the US strategic position looks bleak indeed. Even with rapid militarization, could the US fight off the Japanese and Germans, while having to consider the possibility of the British becoming hostile? Or would be forced to climb down from its antagonistic Japanese policies?

That an easy one I guess. The alliance between Japan and Germany was not very close. 1st it was against ths USSR. 2nd every side hoped that this alliance would prevent an attack of the US. Hitler would not have done anything to help the Japanese. He might even helped the British to protect their colonies. One reason that he didn't want to invade the UK was that he didn't want that the Japonese get their colonies.