Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Crown the Empire Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports
Customer Discussions > History forum

Mannerheim in Finland and WW2 opinions


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-66 of 66 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 7:32:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 7:34:45 PM PDT
patrick says:
thats a good one...it contains multi-layered barbs, both about Hungarians and themselves..

it reminds me of that Israeli street survey joke which is about their level of rudeness and manners...but that probably only has one layer..

Posted on May 6, 2012 7:39:09 PM PDT
patrick says:
Brisbane and Mt Isa are in the same state, but its an enormous state maybe 1.2X size of Alaska, so the two places are still very far apart, maybe 1200-1400 miles..

Posted on May 6, 2012 7:41:48 PM PDT
patrick says:
ok 972 miles flying, 1134 mi driving...

its a smaller expanse than I thought..

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 7:56:19 PM PDT
ipsofacto says:
OK, I'll fly there if I find myself in Brisbane and my relatives aren't jealous or stubborn enough. As a matter of fact, I still nurture the dream of retiring to Australia's outback and buying a deHavilland Tiger Moth for hops to the local pub. But the chance is getting fatter by the day as my stock portfolio tanks.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 9:43:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 2:07:33 AM PDT
briefcandle writes...

"For france and UK the problem was that the soviets only annexed poland up to the recognised border of the treaty of versailles"

RG responds...

To elaborate on an observation already made by ipsofacto, the Curzon line, to which you seem to be referring, was no more than a British proposal as to a starting point for discussions as to where Poland's eastern border might be established. It had no legal standing whatsoever as an agreed border. The Poles were neither legally nor morally obliged to observe it, and as a practical matter, it was pretty much out of touch with the facts on the ground from the word "go".

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 11:10:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2012 11:18:31 PM PDT
patrick says:
look up the story of what happened to a guy named Keith Anderson, and his back-seater, who went swanning about the Outback in a biplane back in the day..they came down in a desert called Tanami, and shared an awful fate..
.they were actually looking for a more famous Australian aviator at the time named Charles Kingsford-Smith...who had been missing for days but showed up with his guys eventually..some sstrongly suspected a total faked disappearance to get in the papers promotion..
meanwhile two guys vainly looking for them, actually DO get in trouble and die...I dont know what the plane was, but probably something in the Gypsy Moth class...
oh, ok, a Westland Widgeon...certainly heard of Westlands, never heard of a Widgeon before, a high wing monoplane , really looks like a period biplane with no lower wing..

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 3:29:09 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
RG says:
"It ( the curzon line) had no legal standing whatsoever as an agreeded border."

Last time britain recognised a border bw prussia and russia it had been at the curzon line. Although renamed it had a long history. The polish border of the treaty of riga was "out of touch with the facts on the ground" from 1939 to the present. The curzon line is and will likely eternally be a fact on the ground forever.

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 9:19:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 9:20:54 PM PDT
<Apparently the Brits felt less pressured to declare war on the Soviet Union when the Soviets bit off a large chunk of Poland in 1939. I mean, violating the integrity of Polish territory was good enough a reason to declare war on Germany and start WW2... >

Poland took Kiev on this day in 1920. Russia took more of Poland in 1939 than Germany. Britain was soon alone.

Finding a lovable participant in this Eastern sphere is difficult. Within a generation or 2 either side of the moving borders of the era, no nation state was without a blood feud with the other.

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 10:42:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 10:45:57 PM PDT
patrick says:
whats that thing the Poles say or others say about Poland..
every generation Russia is either ingesting Poland, or having to regurgigate it from last ingestion.

The UK got out of jail of having to declare war on Soviet Union in 1939 just by virtue of Germany moving in first and doing most of the heavy lifting of subduing Poland militarily...
and I imagine by virtue of knowing damn well that Hitler would be delighted further out of his mind if UK declared war on Stalin.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 2:06:38 AM PDT
briefcandle writes...

"Last time britain recognised a border bw prussia and russia it had been at the curzon line."

RG responds...

Eh, no. You need to check a map. While the Curzon Line tied into the international border between East Prussia and Imperial Russia at its northern end, its proposed course did NOT follow any historical border between Prussia and Imperial Russia. Remember, the whole purpose of the Curzon line was to serve as a starting point for discussions as to where Poland's EASTERN border should be drawn. The historical border between Prussia/Imperial Germany and Imperial Russia subsequent to the Third Partition of Poland lies to the WEST, and reflects a historical period in which Poland was a wholly conquered nation. So while it's true that the British recognized that border, what they recognized had zero correspondence with the course of the Curzon line. They are two completely different things.

You suggest that boundary represented by the Curzon line had a long history. I would argue that, to the contrary, the whole problem is that NO border between Poland and Russia dating all the way back to the Middle Ages ever remained static for very long. As such, declaring any particular demarcation to be "the" historically legitimate border is a problemmatic proposition. This is precisely why the Curzon line was only proposed by the British as a possible starting point for discussion. In the context of the Russo-Polish War, it had no legal standing, and as such, the Poles cannot be charged with "violating" something that they were never legally bound to in the first place.

briefcandle continues...

"The polish border of the treaty of riga was "out of touch with the facts on the ground" from 1939 to the present. The curzon line is and will likely eternally be a fact on the ground forever."

RG response...

Which has absolutely no bearing on the point to which I was responding (i.e. the claim that the Poles violated an internationally recognized border, presumably by not accepting the Curzon line in 1921).

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2014 3:09:27 PM PDT
I just saw a program on The American Hero Channel (Military Channel), about Finland and WWII, I was very impressed with the leadership.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2014 9:40:07 PM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
The border proposed by Britain and France in 1920 and established by Stalin in 1939 was the revised Curzon line A, which awarded the Soviets formerly Austrian Galicia and its capitol Lemberg (aka Lwow/Lvov/Lviv). The city was 51% Polish, 28% Jewish and 19% Ukrainian in 1910. The Allies were advising the Polish government to make peace at any price before they were completely over-run by the Red Army.

Subsequently, after Pilsudski's near-encirclement and rout of the Red Army due to Stalin's zeal as Political Commissar creating a gap between his South-West front assaulting Lwow and Tukhachevsky's Western Front which had halted just outside Warsaw, the Poles drove the Red Army east of Minsk.

Minsk was annexed by Russia in the Partition of Poland in 1793, but at Riga Pilsudski's Polish Nationalist rivals declined it as the population would favor Pilsudski's vison of a multi-ethnic federation.

Over 400,000 Poles and 750,000 Ukrainians were deported to Gulags from the region in 1939 - June 1941. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA), resisted both Nazi occupation and Communist partisans as well as post-war Soviet occuparion until 1949.

Posted on May 25, 2014 6:46:30 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
" The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA), resisted both Nazi occupation and Communist partisans"

Well, it's a bit more complex than that, and large segments of the multifaceted OUN/UPA etc. collaborated with the Axis for most of the war. It was primarily wartime military supplies from the nazis that enabled them to continue their irregular war against the USSR until 1949.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2014 9:11:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 27, 2014 9:16:27 PM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
Mea Culpa!

I had turned to Wikipedia to see how long the UPA kept up the fight...

That got me associating the UPA with what they called elsewhere the moderate Fascist majority of OUN rather than the pro-Nazi "Bandera faction" which gained control.

The Abwehr was in contact with Stepan Bandera before Barbarossa, but he was arrested after declaring an independent Ukrainian state 30 June 1941 and was in a concentration camp until released in September 1944 to fight the Soviets.

It seems that he and his followers were primarily concerned with "cleansing" Ukraine of Poles and Communists, and supporting the Nazi persecution of Jews after 1941 was for the sake of getting German arms and training.

Or so the writer of the Wikipedia article on Bandera maintains. Would you agree?

Of course Putin loves to use memories of Bandera to discredit Ukrainian nationalism, telling Russian-Ukrainians he's "saving them from the new Ukrainian leaders who are the ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler's accomplice during World War II".

Linking Ukrainian nationalism and Hitler, while at the same time, copying Hitler's tactic of claiming to only be trying to protect the German minorities in neighboring countries... Slick Trick!

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2014 12:03:28 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
Again, the Ukrainian political situation is a real rat's nest to untangle. What I've read does seem to indicate that Bandera's group were amoral opportunists, but I've read none of his writings myself. As far as the agenda of the UPA/OUN, an ethnically and politically cleansed 'Greater Ukraine' does appear to have been a part of that. How Bandera and co. would be able to square that with nazi philosophy is anyone's guess, but mine is that the nazis were -never- serious about an independent, or even slav-inhabited, Ukraine. Their 'alliance' was one of desperation and a nihilistic intent to create as much chaos for eveyone as they could.

The nazi philosophy in defeat appears to have been: "If we're going down, we're going to take as much of the world with us as we can."

Using Wiki resources can sometimes be tricky. Much of what I've seen so far on Wiki related to Ukraine and the Baltic nations in WW II (to cite areas of study currently under discussion; this is not to suggest that the rest of Wiki's scholarship is spotless) is so tainted by the multiplicity of agendas, ranging from complete and unrepentant denial apologia to scathing Stalinesque condemnations (with the emphasis changing regularly, as the ebb and flow of contention rocks back and forth), that it is only a basic starting point, most useful for whatever citations might, or might not, be provided to support a particular PoV.

"telling Russian-Ukrainians he's "saving them from the new Ukrainian leaders who are the ideological heirs of Bandera""

OTOH, "President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko awarded Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine" in 2010, in an almost certainly conscious act of collective nose-thumbing at Russia. Apparently, he never heard the story about poking the bear.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2014 12:11:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2014 12:12:17 PM PDT
Joe,

I watched some more Barbarossa Unleashed: The German Blitzkrieg Through Central Russia to the Gates of Moscow June-December 1941, yesterday , I think it was the Military channel~~anyway, I got a few more facts pushed into my brain. Before Germany invaded , the Russians were doing some more land grabbing~~ In the end it came down to the oil fields~~~ "Follow the oil"
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  66
Initial post:  Apr 30, 2012
Latest post:  May 28, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions