You're right. Český Těšín was taken by Poland on October 2 1938. Hungary took the Southern part of Slovakia in November 1938 and only Ruthenia in March 1939.
WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Yes, those annexations were of great value in frustrating the German advances on Leningrad and Moscow in 1941. This is not directly relevant to Russia's current policies, but preventing extension of NATO into Ukraine is greatly to the advantage of peace and stability in Europe.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
to be precise, on the part of Hungary, you may check (part of the Subcarpathoruthenian Land -- I found this term on wiki ... took me several minutes to decide how to call it here
-- up to the Romanian border taken over already in 1938)That wiki is a horrible story. I see that human right violations against the Hungarian minority after the liberation were corrected after Februari 1948.
Formations of army group north reached the outskirts of Leningrad about 9 weeks into the campaign, I believe. Rather quick for the distances involved. Additionally, army group center had it's issues around Smolensk or so and was nowhere near the baltic states.
The losses inflicted on army group north weren't yet really significant during it's drive up to Leningrad. Plus, pretty much on the first day of the war, uprisings began in those baltic states tying down soviet foces as well in significant numbers. I don't really think commanders were already frustrated with the campaing at that point. So strategically and tactically, the anexation of those states wasn't really the point that made the soviets come out on top in the end.
Even if all that was part of Stalin's plan to bring the SU to a position were it could eventually engage in and win a major war against it's ideological (arch)rivals in europe, simply anexing other nations as puffers isn't what we should embrace.
And with that we come back to the main issue here.
The idea of large/powerfull states being the only actually soveraign ones due to their military capability, and therefore having the right to command the fate of smaller nations to ones own ends, is basicly pre WWI thinking.
The consensus, I think I can say, has been that at least throughout Europe we managed to move past that after WWII, or definitely in 1990 for the whole continent. That has pretty much been the center principle around which the european reconciliation and order has been built.
President Putin, essentially bringing back these preWW1 believes in diplomacy and statesmanship (what his rehabilitaion of the Molotv-Ribbentrop pact comes down to), is going against everything that is at the center of peace and stability in Europe for decades now.
On a side note, it wasn't really NATO aggressively expanding eastbound by forcing others to accept membership. It was those eastern european states deliberatly and repeatedly asking for membership. And not by corrupt and bribed rulers doing it against the will of the people. All of this brought those states even closer together, which I would say is enhancing peace and stability, not degrading it.
The only issue then is Russia bullying around against that. Now if all those former eastern block states decide for themselves to turn away from Russia and towards NATO, maybe it's up to Russia to ask herself what might be the reason. And CIA mind controll probably isn't the answer.
So in the end, who are you, or I, or Russia to tell those nations which organizations they may join or not?
I do not think that it is pre WW1 or if there is a chronology to the thinking, but that thinking is still prevalent today even if we choose to term it something else. It is not like the EU is not following US' lead on sanctions on Russia even thou it hurt the EU a bit less than it hurts Russia. It is simply not just military power; but cultural, social and economical - the right by the power of the sword is an old one.
A plan of man or not, the US benefited greatly from WW2 which destroyed the economies of Europe, brain drained Europe's best and brightest and basically took over the European gold reserves by Cash and Carry pre Lend Lease. China benefited greatly from the sino-Vietnamese war which setback Vietnam's economy for decades. The spoils of war, is not simply the plunder.
Every country wants peace, but peace on their own terms - yes I am paraphrasing Jackie Fisher; if a weak state is living under a hegemony, it is peaceful, but is the peace worth the ransom of self determination? Would a sensible country allow their own future to forfeited by allowing a neighbor to be exercise its free will especially if it can do something about it? What was Sparta without the subjugation of the Helots?
And what is free will beyond the catch phrase? The people? the Tyranny of Many is a well known phenomena, the majority does not make it right. Washington would say democracy is two wolf and a lamb voting for what to have for supper. My point is, right and wrong is not that black and white, the majority does not automatically equal right.
We all know that economical sanctions or military action hurt the people and not the government, that was proven during the blitz, Dresden, North Korea, China after 1989, Iran, etc. why is the West intent on hurting the Russian people? -> I don't see it this way, but am just choosing to present it this way. Similarly, why would Russia exerting its cultural, economical and military power on its peripheral nations seen as wrong and doomed to fail when history have proven that given the right circumstances, it produces desirable results even to this day?
Jura The idiot
General
Lezt, while I admire your knowledge of History of the World (I really do -- I know very little about, for example, pre-colonial history of all these ancient powers ... maybe with the exception of the Roman Empire), I don't find your post terribly useful; I don't know where you're located (I was wondering about it coupla times
I admit) but I don't think it's Central Europe so lemme tell you here the Russian threat, exemplified by the annexation of Crimea in Spring, is perceived by many people as real, and those people feel they need to take side ... I noticed ()
very recently
started some motion to declare illegal
... what could come next, the 1940 Peace of Moscow maybe??
But I thank you for your historical perspective.
Last edited:
Lezt, while I admire your knowledge of History of the World (I really do -- I know very little about, for example, pre-colonial history of all these ancient powers ... maybe with the exception of the Roman Empire), I don't find your post terribly useful; I don't know where you're located (I was wondering about it coupla times
()
very recently
started some motion to declare illegal
... what could come next, the 1940 Peace of Moscow maybe??
But I thank you for your historical perspective.
Jura, I don't think it is an issue to take sides; it is all fair and dandy. I do believe that continental Europeans feels the Russian bear significantly especially those in Poland, Romania, Estonia, etc. But on the flip side, I do also believe that Russia feels the encroachment of NATO as a reality as well.
Historically, recently the USSR had dominated eastern Europe. But lest we forget that Russia lost a war to Poland in the 1930s, they were seriously invaded by Germany (Hitler), France (Napoleon), Sweden (Charles XII), Catholics (order of the Teutonic knights 14-15th century - from Holy Roman Empire i.e. Germany)... the mistrust and amenity runs deep.
Thus the question is; or at least was, if a stronger country can and should use it's political/social/economical/cultural might to push through a set of rules and regulations to smaller and weaker countries to follow.
My answer to that question is YES, NATO should encroach on Russian interest, Russia should use it's means to forward its agenda, and the US should use it's power to economically sanction others to oblivion.
I value your contribution and this is a open forum where I welcome your ideas and perspective with great respect.
P.s. I am a Hong Kong native, but I have lived in north america for more than a decade, had a short stay in the UK and various parts of china for some time.
The US military are nearly exhausted by trying to control Afghanistan and Iraq for a dozen years despite the US spending two fifth of all military spending in the World and having the support of two dozen other countries. What threat can there be to Central European countries from the side of the economically much weaker Russia?