Jews...and their Polish experience

well im not so selfish. I believe in helping whenever and wherever you can. not comparing the situation to genocide but would you not support the stop of genocide even if its not in your nations interest.

and that's not even mentioning its in everybody's interest for peace in the middle east. and not even mentioning the yalta conference powers are responsible. so they should fix what they broke.

So you should not run Polish diplomacy, because politicians from other countries (serious countries) are and always were selfish. This is not the place where money from our taxes should flow.

Beside of that, think a bit about the outcome. No matter what we would do, the Jews and the Arabs wont like it. You want "help", waste our cash and get hate in revenge, plus no peace anyway.

Hows your bunker coming along lesser? got all the baked beans you need? plenty of water and such ?

Do you have something to say beside this babbling above?

Ok,in plain English so you can follow. Lesser,you come across as an isolationist nutter,the type who see's enemies everywhere and only really feels safe under the duvet with their teddy bear.No offence you understand.

Enemies? Name those enemies.

I'm not isolationist, I do analyze all possible cases separately. I don't exclude even military intervention if this would be necessary from Polish point of view.

I also hate how goverment rob taxpayers and oppose all unnecessary spendings.

You better explain how this is in Polish interest to meddle in Middle East politics??

have a look at some of the other threads closer to the topic,war on terror et al.
I suppose you are one of those that ***** and moan about poland having been left alone to the sviets yet cant see that things swing both ways,you can either sit in your bunker and hope the world will go away and leave you alone or you,Poland can come and join the international community now and again. Its a case of "put up or shut up."

(not that I dont empathise,I would love to be a citizin of one of those countries that manages to do alright on its own thank you very much,I just dont think they exist on this planet.)

Poland should trade with everybody and have good relation with as much countries as possible. However Poland should not build huge Brussels bureaucracy or send troops all over the world. First action is clearly anti-personal freedom and second simply nonessential. Both target taxpayers.

NATO should not take part in military action in Asia or Africa. This is in their status.

I cant agree,anti personal freedom,my arse, as a leading member of the Royale family would say. What do you think gave your country its freedom? The fact there was a united europe chipping at the iron curtain. all these ,"ooh,brussels is destroying my freedom" whingers just dont realise how good they get it now as opposed to pre european co operation days where backwards countries could pass outrages laws banning all sorts of real freedoms,like freedom of personal expresion,freedom to .......oh forget it,there are enough anti eu knobs around here without me getting in a pointless debate with someone who doesnt now the meaning of responsibilities.

You think its fine that Poland should trade with everyone,have all the advantages of a post communist sociaty but do fek all to earn that place,fine,see how long you'd last that way.

I agree if you want freedom you should pay the necessary costs. countrary to what you think freedom isn't free.

I doubt it,seeing as NATO was set up to counter the threat of the warsaw pact forces . Do you think Nato,in the event of ww3 would have gone,"nope,cant bomb the soviet pacific fleet coz its in asia"?

I for one am proud our(uk) forces went in alone in Africa,we put a stop to the carnage in Sierra leone,one of the few good things tony blair did.

"Freedom" is a relative term raped by all kind of governments regularly. Communism collapsed because bankrupted, nothing to do with Europe. Read books of Vladimir Bukovsky then you will learn about real positions of western European leaders on Eastern Europe. Your idealized world would crumble. I don't blame them but I draw conclusions.

Somehow you have no desire to discuss the EU issues in this forum. Defend them or criticize, both attitudes must be backed by some knowledge... The EU doesn't need to be based on bureaucracy and socialism and those who claim so are either blind or liars.


NATO wont be at war with Russia, this is a reality that some need to swallow. Theoretically if Russia would attack NATO member then the latter could invade them. This situation have nothing to do with so called WOT swindle.

why antysemitism Now you made it clear you dont feel any connections with your origin (shame) ... that is all.


we are everywhere some people just think it is to much ... Kosovo Afghanstan Israel Iraq Africa ...

"advocate of evil" ... pathetic


you are so enlighted ...

There was no Warsaw Pact when NATO was established, so the fact is that Warsaw Pact was an answer to NATO, not the other way around.

NATO - established on 4 April 1949.
Warsaw Pact - established on May 14, 1955 as a reaction to NATO's acceptance of West Germany 5 days earlier.

Warsaw Pact/Bunch of Commie states collected round USSR...now your quibling. I suppose now you will tell me you guys only had missiles pointed westwards as " Purely defensive peoples weapons system"........either way Comrade lessers idea that NATO wouldnt have fought in Asia is bizzare.BTW Comrade lessor,when did I say we intended to fight russia? I said NATO was set up for the possibility it MAY have had to fight russia........


What are you rabbiting on about lukaSSz?your a bit disturbed arnt you,first its threats to people and plastering their name all over here now I am somehow forgeting a non existent jewish heratage. Your frikkin tapped mate,Id start back on the meds if I was you......


compared to you buddy I reached nirvana years ago.......

this statement shows your nirvana ... iSStahu

maybe one where he's not giving a heil hitler style salute would have better suited your argument......:)

Lesser the Soviet economy went bankrupt because they spent all their money on the military trying to keep up with America and Nato. So It had everything to do with Europe. In addition the Pope and the solidarity movement was another force thatcracked communism because the soviet could not afford a war. All these issues are related and have all to do with Europe and especially America. For whoever said that Warsaw pact was answer to Nato. Even though the warsaw pact wasn't formed till after Nato was established. Obviously with Russia controling all of eastern europe it was obvious where the countries under the Russian sphere stood. So warsaw pact was established though not formally known as the warsaw pact the first day after ww2 that Russia took control of eastern europe. NATO was established because Russia had its claws and controlled eastern europe

This and the oil price which fell to ridiculous levels doomed soviet economy.However the system would last if there were had been no insider traitors.

southern explain insider traitor?

The soviet union destroyed Polands economi.
If the soviet would still be, then Poland would live as they did in the fifties.

You wrote that NATO was a response to Warsaw Pact. I proved to you it wasn't. Your throbbing is just pointless and adds nothing to the debate, and apparently you can't keep a deal. Could it really be a Britihs trait? Please, prove me wrong.

You are wrong. NATO is firsts and foremost the US, by military potential and financial input. Anyway high Soviet military spendings were not crucial. How many years the US waste a lot of cash on military spendings and somehow they didn't bankrupt.

The problem with Soviet system was that they wanted by force push their ideology completely ignoring the realities. Reality was not important, they tried to establish communist kind of economy by all means. They had such incredible unwillingness to admit to their own mistakes and were stuck with completely insufficient solutions. The Soviet Union lasted so long only because citizens as much as possible tried to avoid law order, all these silly bureaucratic regulations. If they would stick strictly to these regulations then Soviet Union would collapse earlier. They would probably die from hunger themselves. Collectivization, lack of private business, overwhelming bureaucracy caused economic crash.

Your argument is it couldn't be the military spending because US didn't go bankrupt. What logic is that. They were do differentg economic systems. One was able to handle the strain of military spending other could not. US economy is based on free market where their is a competition for better quality and lower price. In additon because of this competition it was less likely for corruption to breed as easily as it did during communism. Don't you find it odd that western economies are more developed then eastern economies. Also like to add that the western economies invested both in the public sector as much as private sector and this made their economies stronger to handle the strain. Soviet economy was built for war, and when the government could afford to pay for military projects the enitre economy collapsed

Soviet system was self-destructing, could not handle anything. It would collapse even without military spendings. This is why I cannot agree that military spendings caused its collapse. You could say that military spendings increased a bit speed of this process. However the reason was this economic system itself.


And corruption in the SU helped this country to survive longer. Looks like absurd but this is true.

Lesser explain how corruption helped SU survive longer, seems like a interesting idea please explain. First comment about economy being self destructing, its true but because of the military spending. look at Cuba same exact system as SU. They did not spend nearly the percentage of their gdp as SU and their economy is going strong. not as good as market economies but good enough to survive.

Last things when I said military spending was the cause of collapse. I should have stated it better. Its was the largest contributing factor but not the only one.

When laws are completely out of touch from reality, this is better or even necessary to broke these laws. For example if chief of the gulag has instruction from the party to produce some certain amount of goods. He is aware that if he would try to do it legally then this would be impossible. If he fails he would be fired from this job. So he do this illegally (buy necessary materials, transport etc). The outcome is that he managed and everybody are happy.

Ordinary workers to feed their families needed to steal from their factories what only possible. Otherwise they would die from hunger. Of course guards wanted bribes from the same reason. Bosses produced illegally additional goods for profit and consumers were happy that these goods are available on the black market.


Every communist system is a bit different. I cannot judge Cuban, I'm not familiar with details. I doubt that they have as much bad system like Soviets. Cuban economy is not strong for sure.


Soviets could continue this as well. They simply decided to stop because it went in wrong direction. The Cubans otherwise. What particular moment do you expect to announce collapse of the economic system?

As far as county is concentrated, Cuba wont be territorially divided, because if I'm not wrong, people over there consider themselves to be Cubans. Soviet Union was federalist and ethnically divided.

The corruption does ring true and makes sense. But it also caused products of inferior quality and higher price. If I offered an offical 10000 dollars to buy from me. He would by my product even that it could be of worse quality and higher price because Im giving him money.

Im also not an expert on the cuban system, but I imagine it can't be that much different. Im assuming the fundementals are the same. That comment about Russia being federalists I agree that was also a contributing factor to the collapse. However I believe SU collpse had mostly to do with economy but also because of ideology and several other factors such different cultures.

Sure but this example does not fit to Soviet realities. Central planning in the Soviet Union and the fact that everything is state owned caused lack of competition on the market. Director of the Soviet factory is not interested give anybody such a bribe. He knows that there is no similar product on the market. Soviet state owned markets were supplied with the same products. Director of this factory was interested to accomplish some centrally planned task. Profit was not so important for him because he is not a owner.

Lesser that's a good point no reason to bribe because lack of competition. But lack of competition doesn't mean no competition. You had several mining, automobile, shipbuilding, and energy company's. Some where favored more then others depending on the desires of the kremlin. This is where the bribes took place. So a company would offer a bribe so it would be favored. but it doesn't matter because I think we both agree SU collapsed because of economy and ideallogy and several smaller factors.