PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
 
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width1108

What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others?


Babinich  1 | 453  
25 Dec 2008 /  #931
Unfortunately for your country, you also had a foe who was an ally of Britain.

Not only an ally but the prime enabler that allowed the Russian Revolution to succeed.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #932
A tragic irony that, only a few years earlier, the policy of appeasement and placating led to such devastation.
Babinich  1 | 453  
25 Dec 2008 /  #933
I am not sure what you mean.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #934
We gave Hitler what he wanted for so long, under Chamberlain. Then we gave Stalin a free reign after WWII.

If America didn't want communism so badly, why didn't they take a stand then? They took the easy option of nuking Japan.
Babinich  1 | 453  
25 Dec 2008 /  #935
I am talking about the direct intervention by the Britain Government which solidified the power of the Soviets.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #936
Yeah, it's still appeasement in a way. Giving the Soviets what they wanted
Babinich  1 | 453  
25 Dec 2008 /  #937
I am sorry Seanus, I am not making myself clear. I meant to say that the British helped the Soviets solidify power when it looked as if the October Revolution was teetering..

As to your point of using the A-Bomb on Japan it may have been the easy option. Would you rather have had the carnage that would have resulted if Japan itself was invaded?
Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #938
Look deeper, it happens all the time in politics
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
25 Dec 2008 /  #939
If America didn't want communism so badly, why didn't they take a stand then? They took the easy option of nuking Japan.

Because it would have been too tragic. Nuking soviets wasn't an option. It would have affected the European continent, no one knew how badly, at the time, and it was too risky.

I doubt Japan would have been nuked if they would have surrendered and not been so aggressive. It was a last ditch effort to end the wars.

It's still a mystery why things went the way they did. Why did Britain and the US allow the pact between the USSR and Germany, then meet in Tehran with Stalin in 1943? That's strange. Did the soviets feel stabbed in he back, did they finally realize National Socialists were complete nutjobs?

It's easy to see why the soviets weren't challenged after the war. What is murky is why Hitler wasn't challenged before.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #940
It changed Japan for the better tho. America made a smart decision to not get too involved in Europe. They did wonders in WWII.
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11918  
25 Dec 2008 /  #941
It's easy to see why the soviets weren't challenged after the war. What is murky is why Hitler wasn't challenged before.

I think it was the same reasons...appeasement!

Appeasement: The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace

Seanus  15 | 19666  
25 Dec 2008 /  #942
Look at 933, 935 and 937 above.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #943
Sadly, Poland's greatest struggle of all has taught us that peace is not always such a good thing. Peace at what price?
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #944
Peace is a noble cause. Those megalomaniacs have gone and destroyed that. NATO, Zionists etc etc.

All for power and influence.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #945
Peace is a noble cause. Those megalomaniacs have gone and destroyed that. NATO, Zionists etc etc.

NATO has helped to keep the peace. From how it looks over here, Europe wants to fight with itself. If NATO can stop that, it's good. Zionism is jews wanting a homeland of some kind so they can live someplace and not be subject to the prejiduces of the rulers, why deny them that? You use zionism in a negative way but is it really negative? It's a reaction against thousands of years living in foreign lands, the "diaspora". It's not negative. Why the paranoia? Any human being will try to control if given the chance, doesn't matter their origins, it's human nature. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be governments in Europe or the US or anywhere else on earth.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #946
NATO bombed the hell out of Serbia. I liked Clinton in ways but he misjudged this. Why? He didn't see the full picture. Where's the restoration of peace there?

I don't deny that searching for a new homeland was wrong. It isn't. Look what it has caused tho. My informed colleague, yehudi, told me that Israelis have pulled out of Gaza (2006). Still, just this morning I read that Hamas have broken the ceasefire by firing rockets into sensitive areas. That was from BBC who are pro-Israel. The situation is more complicated than that. Peace my ass!

Not Zionism in a negative way, you judge by deeds. There is no paranoia on my part, just an attempt to discuss which is what a forum is for.

I have no vested interest in the matter. In fact, my Mum's maiden name is Jewish so I must have Jewish ancestry way back.
Crow  154 | 9544  
26 Dec 2008 /  #947
NATO has helped to keep the peace.

NATO is tool for crimes and terrorism...

America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims
The Srebrenica report reveals the Pentagon's role in a dirty war
Richard J Aldrich The Guardian, Monday April 22 2002


Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo
by Umberto Pascali

US (And UK) Backed Islamic Terrorism in the Balkans
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Dec 2008 /  #948
I liked Clinton in ways but he misjudged this.

I started to read the Clinton autoboigraphy man thats the most boring book ive ever tried to read. I skipped to the Monica Lewinski section and all he wrote was he'd had "inappropriate meetings" what a disappointment.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #949
Nice, Crow. Some truth has come out.

As I said, WB, in ways. He doesn't believe in an inside job so he can take a running jump.

Look at what Gurion, the first PM of Israel said, at 1.15-1.17.

Care to comment, Hateful Bunch? Oh, and while you are at it, at 2.26. Sharon says "the dirty work of Zionism". Care to explain?
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #950
Are you forgetting a key component? WWII???? That is what led to all this. Europe should support Israel without question considering the past.
Isn't Ehud Olmert the PM of Israel right now? Why do you keep mentioning Sharon?
On that note, it's no surprise Sharon would downplay zionism. Politicians in the western world, Russia and China like to keep religion out of politics and promote secularism because they believe it keeps the population more stable and it's better for the people. Religion tends to bring out extremism and that's not good.

I don't know what to say about NATO and Serbia. It's another unfortunate event, like the war in Iraq is right now. It would be nice to avoid these types of conflicts but is it really ever possible?
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Dec 2008 /  #951
Europe should support Israel without question considering the past.

Isreal should be left on their own, if the Arabs want em let them have the tight fisted bastads. Do us all a favour.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #952
It was BRITAIN that created Palestine. Like it or not Israel is an ally of the west and that's the way it will be. It is still influenced by G.B. don't forget that it's sorta like a colony of Britain and Britain has a great influence in that region. PLEASE do not fail to mention BRITAIN and it's role in all this.

While we are on that, I would like to coin new terms "Britainism" and "Britainist" to describe Britain's quest to control and conquer the world as part of an international conspiracy of wealthy Brits.
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Dec 2008 /  #953
It was BRITAIN that created Palestine.

Maybe but the US are the ones providing weapons. The Jews look after themsleves and their own interests period. Its a business establishment nothing more, no moral connections what so ever. We should cut them off.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #954
"Britainist" Someone who believes the entire world should be owned by and revolve around Britain.
"Britainism" The belief the entire world should be owned by Britain ;););)

Maybe but the US are the ones providing weapons. The Jews look after themsleves and their own interests period. Its a business establishment nothing more, no moral connections what so ever. We should cut them off.

You are not seeing the entire picture. The reason Israel exists is a refuge for people not wanted in Europe. It's a traditional homeland. It should be supported and all the myths demystified. A lot of what you read are myths that have existed for hundreds of years that have led to wars. The US and western allies are trying to keep peace in the region, so we don't end up with something like what was in Europe after WW I. We are trying to avoid a situation like that one with a lot of casualities. It would help if people would stop believing lies about the area. Those lies cause people to do things that are not in their best interest and they create instability it makes things worse for everyone.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #955
WWII, give it a break, would you? Europe should NOT support those who advocate terrorism and swiping of land. Correct me if I am wrong but Sharon was the PM after WWII for many years. Should we have supported him?

Conflicts are avoidable, you should know that.
you talk of rights, Hateful Bunch. I don't think the Likud really value them

Olmert, you say? He has no practical solutions. How does an Arab-Israeli feel when the national anthem criticises them? The British anthem was like that, insulting to Scots and it's downright divisive.
szarlotka  8 | 2205  
26 Dec 2008 /  #956
Time warpist = someone who actually believes that Britainists still exist in modern day UK and probably belives we have cream teas every afternoon and shoot tigers for fun...
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #957
Hehehe, that was brilliant Szarly.
Wroclaw Boy  
26 Dec 2008 /  #958
"Britainist" Someone who believes the entire world should be owned by and revolve around Britain.

I believe the entire world should be governed by one central government thats a fact. That however has nothing to do with my distaste towards Jewish people, as a company director iver had quite a few engagements with Israeli business men and never have i experienced such deceit and down right treachery by any other nation. Ive met nice Isreali people but in general i fcuking hate them and everything they stand for.
HatefulBunch397  - | 658  
26 Dec 2008 /  #959
In this MODERN day and age Israel should exist because there is no other place. There's no other choice.
Seanus  15 | 19666  
26 Dec 2008 /  #960
That's what the Palestinians say, Hateful Bunch!!

One central government, LOL. That was hilarious!!

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / What did Poland get out of the wars and struggles for others?Archived