Question For Germans and Russian On The Forum

For me it's quite amazing how different the same historical facts may be interpreted - but first let me confirm, that your historical knowledges are very high standing. But your conclusions...

First I have a complete different interpretion to the lithuanian-muskovian story. It was the western oriented Lithuanians who freed their country + countries of belarus (bela - white - free) from the mongoles. Vilnius was a major town in those times. Wiking derived Lituanians and slavian RUS were reported to have a quite peaceful together. Nowadays Ukrainian territories were liberated later and Kiew got "Magdeburger Stadtrecht" as a respected town in the european world. Those times Moscow wasn't even founded and the area part of a far eastern empire. So calling at least Lithuania artifical may not be correct, and also estonia also had a own (small) existence in that times. But Moscow did a quite better performance in the following 600 years and destroyed their western neighbour - events like 1605 can also be interpreted as matters of a non successfull defence against imperialism. Same facts - different interpretation - and I don't assert mine to be right, but for me it's conclusive...

Much bigger problems I have with your definition "artifical state". I dont think, only states that existed continously since the middle ages have a right to exist. So there would be a big Vakuum between France, Sweden, Russia and Turkey. Look at a map of 1815 - 200 years ago - no Finland, no Norway, no Ireland, no Italy, no Germany and nearly none of the eastern middle european states.
For me a state is viable (and that excludes "artificial") if it fullfills some formall conditions (defined teritorry, population, constitution, international accnowledge) but mainly if the citizens (mainly) share a common unterstanding why this state should exist. This can be defined national, ethnic, religious, historical, cultural, in love of a monarchy (also dictatorship), ideology...
And if this common unterstanding declines (f.e. in Austria during WW1, in USSR, Yugoslavia 1991 and in the ME today) people organice themselves in a new way, unfortuneately mostly with weapons.
In Ukraine such a new organisation is on it's way since the ideologial clip socialism declined in 1991. Ethnical argued you might indeed take big parts with russia. But what about the historical argumentation (Lithuania again ...), and at least the cultural. What if poeple in eastern ukraine mainly want to become a part of middleeuropean culture and EU, although beeing ethnic russians. What if they mainly want to take the political and economical system of the West. Would you allow it to them (although I know they will neither ask you than me ) ? For me making offers is o.k. (cheap russian gas vs. EU helping programs), concealed weaponing and man-powering of seperatists not.
Maybe the main differnce between our point of view you mentioned twice "respect". One should respect the way others organize their living, even if it is not understandable to own opinions. In private meanings (since 1648 I don't murder protestants anymore, and beeing hetero I have no problems with homosexuals) as in political.

 

This is what it is all about.

The Ukraine ha d a uge number of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons....the Ukraine also needed money and Russia could not raise the capital to purchase such weapons back nor could Russia pay to propery detroy them nor did Russia even have the Technology in some of the Chemical and Biological Weapons cases.

Russia did not want it to look like the United States was payng to destroy Soviet Weapons in Ukraine so deals were made such as debt forgiveness and other considerations bt don't let that fool you...the money came from US...the U.S.

We have had such U.S. Military Weapons Destruction Teams in Russia and in every former Soviet State for multiple decades now and we are STILL in Russia right now.

In return...Russia promised not to invade these nations such as Georgia and the Ukraine.

THAT....is what REALLY is P!$$!NG OFF the United States right now.

The U.S. and Russia could have been solid parners helping each other develop Siberian Infrastructure and Oil and Gas.

Instead we have to watch Putin go down with the ship...a ship we helped try to fix.

AboveAlpha

 

When did I say it's word for word translation? Read it again:

I merely translated Königsberg into French, not into Russian or any other slavic language. I even pointed out that names of cities change. I don't know what needs to be contradicted here...

 

Yes you are right. Reading "same town in two languages" I supposed you mean translation, especially with your french example, but you didn't.
So take my excuse.

And our non german/russian languaged followers now don't fall in the trap with the two accustically similar words.

 

Kaliningrad and Königsberg are the same town but not the same town in two languages... two different concepts of the same city. As St. Petersburg and Leningrad, in fact in geman Kaliningrad is Kaliningrad, not Königsberg and in Russian Königsberg is Königsberg, not Kaliningrad. Is the same New York that Nieuw Amsterdam?

Can you see this russian map: Königsberg in russian is Königsberg (Montreal).In Russian in 1914, Königsberg was Königsberg, not Kalinin (a bolshevik) grad...

 

First it is a pleasure to discuss with you ... you know what you're talking about. As I say the facts are sacred, the interpretations are free.You are right abouth Kiev, in fact Kiev is one of the origins of Russia.

Every state is artificial, but some are more artificial than others. I think the older country (in a modern sense) in the world is USA. It is the first country with a constitution and consisted by free citizens. But in Europe, the existence of a country comes from its monarchy... I think You attached great importance to the concept of nation as a collective will ... when the truth is that this "collective will" is the product of manipulation, social engineering made by a minority of power, an elite (nationalist etc etc).... your examples are clever: Habsburg Monarchie, or Soviet Union, or CZ were not destroyed by the will of the people who lived there ... but by minorities who controlled the instruments of power and the medias. Countries don´t create nationalist. ...Nationalist create Countries..Tell me one country and I prove that It is an artificial country produced by power elite...

France? what are the symbols: republicanism, language, identity ... France is an invention of French revolutionaries...language? In 1870-1871 only 35% french people spoke in French language! republicanism? Still in 1900, the monarchy was more popular than the Republic... What we understand like "France" is product of III Republic... Education system.. nothing more.
Habsburg States? They weren´t destroyed by their people... There was no referendum, no consultation, nothing save the imposition of fanatical nationalist minorities.. most people just wanted to live in peace, gave the same to remain part of the Habsburg´ States
For me It is more honest and less artificial the relationship with a family. with a person, than with a territory, language, etc, created by minorities as
Croatian and Serbian the same language or Galician and Portuguese ... only the nationalist minority make the difference to "show" they are "different" languages...I think It is less artificial the FJ ""An Meine Völker!" or "Mým Národum!"..

I did not live the disintegration of the Empire, but lived the disintegration of CZ.. and It was an artificial desintegration, produced by a corrupt minority, without consulting the people, as in 1918/1919...

Regards

We do not think so differently. Maybe in Ukrainie issue.

 

Yes and No
There are enough examples for political changes accomplished by a powerful minority and of changes conditioned by collective will. Most revolutions were startetby a few dozen radicals. And the crowd stood and watched, getting their head out of the fire (I would take that strategy, too).
Others mostly the disintegration of states happend because the citizen mostly didn't feel for this state anymore. With the disintegration of CZ 1993 (I think you meant this one...) it was like both peoples didn't want anymore. So they democratically decided and did this. Vaclav Havel formally managed this divorce although he had been a supporter of CSR. I've been in both parts of CSR in that time and spoke to young people. Usually there was not hatred to each other. Same with disappearence of DDR. There was a lot of promises from the west indeed. But mainly the eastgermans simply didn't want to have this country anymore.
Same way I interprete the disappearance of Habsburg in 1918. It was less the italian, serbian and other nationalists, that destroyed Austria. It was the monarchial authority that dissapeared. Galizia and the Balkan were left alone - some german and hungarian core parts stayed. St. Germain put these away from Austria/Hungary, but unless the German Reich that was still complete in 1919, Austria hat already disappeared from history.
At least you want some examples of national states without "national foundation" by some elites. What about Ireland? They defined in not beeing anglosaxon and fought a very long war for national souvereignity. I don't know a specific person or group to achieve that. Same with Hungaria.
Most other countries indeed startet by a revolution or separation of a few - but now they only exist because people want them so.
See Switzerland. In the late 1930's poor Switzerland would have been easily disintegrated to wealthy German empire, Mussolininis Italy (who tried to win ticino people for his ideas) and leave the rest to France. But Swiss peoples' will was stronger.
See Austria now. People didn't want to have a western and an eastern state like in Germany. The decided to stay Austrians and in 1955 the got united again. German people prefered the security of their ally US/USSR and stayed save but divided until the iron curtain fell.
For me these examples are quite different but in their way the are legitime - all these states were carried by their people.

 

Exactly, I was living in CZ from 1988 and I lived the process.I think the end of Habsburg States might be similar. I was both side of CZ.. and I´ve never seen nobody wanted the split of CZ... Czech were indifferent, they did not care to remain united or not ... and Slovaks wanted to stay united.. at least the many slovak I spoke in that time...In fact, there was not referendum.

Yes, It mined by a moral crisis. Nationalists drove to a few thousands in Agram, Prag and Budapest .. and Kaiser thought he was alone. The fanding of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the most important event in the history of the twentieth century in Europe.

Well, Ireland wasn´t a national fight but religious...In fact, Irish did not care to be part of the Spanish Empire in XVI and XVII centuries. in January 2013 in Archivo de Simancas was an exhibition about the Irish and the Spanish Empire ... the Irish had no problem accepting the Catholick King´s sovereignty (In fact the main Irish chiefs accepted the Spanish King sovereignty over Ireland: Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone and Red Hugh O'Donnell) It is very difficut to speak about nationalism in XVI or XVII or XVIII centuries. It was more important the Religious factor. (another example Dutch Catholics did not hesitate to fight in the Spanish armies against the Dutch Protestants). I think Nationalism is very modern ideology.

Irish nationalism was formed in the nineteenth century against the Protestant invader ... It has a very strong religious component.

Hungarian nationalism was invented by the powerful and egocentric Hungarian nobility to defend their feudal privileges against the House of Habsburg and have their foundation myth: the 13 Martyrs of Arad (only 5 were hungarian.. at the best) and they weren´t executed by "nationalism"...

In 1946-1947 there was a project to join Bavaria and Austria (and bavaria people didn´t matter to separate from Germany and join Austria), It failt because US opposed. But the project existed. Germany, for example, born during the Weimar Republic as we undertand nowadays...The Second Reich was a confederation of German states ... not even existed the German army...Technically there was a Prussian, Bavarian , Württemberg, Saxon etc etc ones

We can´t forget Switzerland also experienced its civil war in the nineteenth century and nearly disappeared.

Regards

 

So now we really are so far down in history, that differences in opinian get minimal.

Nationalism was the evil child of the 19th century, it's parents were religious fanatism and it's grandchild is the fascism of the 20th century. After WW2 both USA and USSR were on the non nationalistic path, but very ideological. Now we have the EU which is - with all its bureaucratic faults and its non perfect democrary - the most anti nationalistic organisation in world. So things may improve ...

One last footnote: Forget the bavarian-austrian thing. Those connections were cut in 1866. And after WW2 Austria had only three national interests: Stay in maximum distance of the outcasts from germany, get accepted as "first victims of Hitler", not as offenders and get back Südtirol from Italy.
By the work of Otto Habsburg and many others they succeeded in the first two parts, in the third they failed, mainly because Italy had changed sides in time in 1943. Also in Bavaria the interest for Austria was not too big. Austria was much poorer than Germany and Bavaria lived mainly on the money earned in western germany (but we payed that back with simple and compund interest in the last 30 years...).

I think now we can put an end to this interesting discussion and thank you for it.

 

a small precision: the bavarian austrian join proyect existed in 1945-1949.. the Bavarian and Austrian Join under Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria.. it was US who opposed the join.
In 1946 Germany was as poor as Haiti.. lack of roads, rails, industries, trade, agriculture, the cities were just a pile of rubble and there was still the Soviet plan to divide Germany into 300 independent territories.
In fact, still in 1954, the 70% bavarian population wanted the restauration of monarchy and not matter the Austria join.. and we are talking about 1954... in 1946 only US opposition avoid Bavaria abandoned Germany to join Austria.

I think the same, but I have seen the need to make that preciseness

 

Russia in fact annexed them, only not on paper, those countries were 100% controlled by Kremlin. Since 1989 they are independent till now. Putin says that losing that influence was the biggest geopolitical catastrophy.

 

No, Willi Brandt did not recognize the Polish-German borderline, Helmut Kohl did during reunification negotiation. This was the official view, the practical approach was to not demand Polish territory at Willy Brandt times, too.

The GDR recognized the Polish border from the beginning.


The "Eastern half of Poland" was not Polish, it did not even have so many Polish people living there, Poland occupied it for like 20 years, because they wanted to restore Poland in the borders from before the Polish participations.

The German population in these provinces left during WWII for the big part because of the front line coming closer. German People living there after the war became mainly "polonized".

 

Yes, it's a very different city today. There are like 0.6 per cent people of German origin living there, and they probably came from other regions for the most part.

 

He did. And Jelzin guaranteed the borders of the Ukraine in 1994.

A very good point. Can ethnic cleansing create a rightful national claim of an area? Obviously it can. It is risky though, Serbia tried the same and failed, you have to be very powerful or have very powerful allies to do this.

 

Königsberg. Always was! For the last 700 years at least. Russians just took it the same way they took Viborg, Finland. Viborg was firstly Swedish, actually.

 

I believe in Anschluss.

Fr. Merkel should get off her azz and start building more panzers and Luftwaffe and take it all back.

 

Your history is very very good !!

A Russian scholar once told me that the Russians are really half-breed Swedes and Greeks from ancient times.

I can see it because Slavic sounds like Greek and the Russians look Swedish.

 

Russians have nothing in common with Greeks. They're Mongoloids mixed with Baltics and Finns (the Russkis). Greeks are unique. Their language is unique. The Latin alphabet and Latin language is based on the Greek. The Greek language was the first modern European language. The Roman Empire took it, modified it into Latin. They even admit it in the old Scriptures. The Greeks – the creators of the Modern World.

And also, it's called Anschluß, not Anschluss. Merkel is the destroyer of Europe. The new Stalin.

 

I think the complete ethnic cleansing of Germans from that area kind of sealed the deal.

 

Russians, in European Russia, are Mongoloids?

It seems to me the Greeks are a far much better candidate for such classification considering their swarthy complexions.

 

The top one is Greek, the bottom one is Russian. If you say Russians are not Mongoloids and Greeks are, you've clearly missed school.

 

Here's another two. The bottom one is clearly the Russian Mongoloid, top one is Greek.

 

When were there ever Argentines living on the Falklands then and how many did they 'liberate' in 1982 ? Claiming something is yours due to its goegraphical proximity doesn't automatically make it so. See Hawaii for details

 

Depends who you ask.

I read some postings here.....if anything, Russia or most of it should be dismantled, much like the former SU, many of its lands are stolen and as a state has no legal basis to exist in its present form.