Reply to: Czech Republic government caves in to eurosceptic president

[AtW]

Some Cossacks fought for the Soviet Union, some fought on the side of Germany at the beginning of the war.

And? Some British people (including high profile ones) supported Nazies from start, should one generalise over all British people? Not even all Germans were supporting Nazies.

Cossacks were indeed pro-Tsar, but your statement that those of them who were deported to their deaths from this country on request of Stalin supported Nazies just because they were Cossacks is very wrong.

They where a strong people and a threat to Stalins grand plan so he used this fact to massacre them all.

Yeah right - after 1945, when WW2 was over a bunch of Cossacks claiming asylum in UK were a threat to Stalin?!?!?! Do you know who Cossacks were? Hint - they did not wield plasma rifles and orbital destroyers. They were sent to their deaths in order to appear Stalin.

[Ltd ability]

Why?

Lisbon Treaty is good because it is designed to prevent a couple of non-team players who enjoy benefits of being in EU but do not want to be team players, also it is designed to prevent small countries holding hostage whole EU decision making process because of their own historical or current petty differences.

you make the EU sound like working in McDonalds!

[sunnysan]

Here is what you said:

"I would not say that was an example of "help", more like a concession to Stalin at Yalta. What the article declines to mention is that the Cossacks where to more or less of a degree allies of the Nazis."

Some Cossacks fought for the Soviet Union, some fought on the side of Germany at the beginning of the war. They where a strong people and a threat to Stalins grand plan so he used this fact to massacre them all. He wanted them out of the way and this at best provided a good excuse. There is indisputable historical evidence that some of the Cossacks fought on the side of Germany. Not a sound moral reason to kill them and their families but this never did seem worry the likes of Stalin and Beria

Obviously it wasn't - this was example of the West appeasing Stalin just like it was appearing Hitler earlier.

Which is exactly my point, your inital post seemed to use this as an example of how the UK was fighting the Soviets, when I said it not fighting, it was appeasement

USA is too far, Europe is here - it was not USA making deals with Stalin or Hitler anyway, if anything USA did far more to fight USSR than whole of Europe combined, next would be UK though.

No? So Roosevelt was less influential than Churchill Teheran and Yalta? FDR never had any private chats with Stalin? Come on. As far as fighting USSR where did Roosevelt ever publicly dispute Stalins territorial claims in EE? If anything he was courting Russia for assistance in the pacific theatre of war.

The USA only started to "fight" or "contain" Communism after 1946, when the policy of containment became a pivotal feature of US foreign policy.

[AtW]

Thats not what I said. You used it as an example of how UK fought against the USSR and I dont really see it that way.

Here is what you said:

"I would not say that was an example of "help", more like a concession to Stalin at Yalta. What the article declines to mention is that the Cossacks where to more or less of a degree allies of the Nazis."

just pointing out that Churchill et al throwing them to the wolves can hardly be classed as "fighting" with Stalin.

Obviously it wasn't - this was example of the West appeasing Stalin just like it was appearing Hitler earlier.

So yes they where occupied by the Soviets and life was cr@p but its hardly the fault of the present EU and certainly not a reason IMHO to admit a country to the EU. Next you are going to be saying that the whole of EE should get visas for the USA bacuase the Yanks didnt protect them in WW2? Why should the EU subsidise if the Americans dont?

USA is too far, Europe is here - it was not USA making deals with Stalin or Hitler anyway, if anything USA did far more to fight USSR than whole of Europe combined, next would be UK though.

[sunnysan]

Views

Oh that's all right then...

Thats not what I said. You used it as an example of how UK fought against the USSR and I dont really see it that way.

So you label all Cossacks as allies or nazies, let's maybe kill them all to punish them? Nice views you have.

What I think is irrelevant. The reason why they where massacred was because of where Stalin thought their sympathies lay. I was not making a moral case for or against them, just pointing out that Churchill et al throwing them to the wolves can hardly be classed as "fighting" with Stalin.

2nd front should have been opened earlier (1943) BEFORE Stalin crossed European borders, this would have made it much harder for him to occupy big part of Europe.

In any case the matter of fact is that whilst most of Western Europe gotten away from Stalin's clutches, the rest has fallen into his hands and it was not nice life for them. That's why accepting them into EU now and helping them out goes a long way towards making it up to them for the time under Soviet occupation - they "took one for the team" and did it for 50 years.

Agreed, but both Churchill and Roosevelt knew the potential for massive casualties so IMHO, when DE invaded Russia I think they actually delayed opening a western front so the Russians could absorb most of the casualties. I think this was probably more Roosevelt than Churchill, as Roosevelt could already see the shape of the world after WWII but UK was weakened and a Western Front was not feasible without US involvement.

So yes they where occupied by the Soviets and life was cr@p but its hardly the fault of the present EU and certainly not a reason IMHO to admit a country to the EU. Next you are going to be saying that the whole of EE should get visas for the USA bacuase the Yanks didnt protect them in WW2? Why should the EU subsidise if the Americans dont?

[AtW]

It is historical fact that at the end of WWII Churchill wanted to nuke the USSR before they got their own nuclear weapons. According to the MI6 archives; MI6 was up for it too. If Churchill had his way, AtW would not exist.

Churchill had some whacky ideas that were wrong - luckily this country had system where single person could not do everything he wanted, on the other hand he got important things right - if Britain made deal with Hitler in 1940 when it could do so easily, then Barbarossa would have started much ealier with a lot more Luftwaffe on the Eastern front, this would also prevented Land Lease deals - Nazies would have certainly won: I'd take risk of being nuked over that prospect.

[Paddy]

[QUOTE=AtW;971931]- I am personally very happy to be citizen of a country where its leader (Churchill) made the right call on 2 critical people: Hitler and Stalin (USSR in general).

QUOTE]

It is historical fact that at the end of WWII Churchill wanted to nuke the USSR before they got their own nuclear weapons. According to the MI6 archives; MI6 was up for it too. If Churchill had his way, AtW would not exist.

[AtW]

AtW this thread is about the EU, not the USSR, although I can see how you can get confused between the two.

Indeed, but who mentioned USSR first?

[Doggy Styles]

AtW this thread is about the EU, not the USSR, although I can see how you can get confused between the two.

[AtW]

I would not say that was an example of "help", more like a concession to Stalin at Yalta.

Oh that's all right then...

What the article declines to mention is that the Cossacks where to more or less of a degree allies of the Nazis.

So you label all Cossacks as allies or nazies, let's maybe kill them all to punish them? Nice views you have.

My point however still stands that the European Allied powers could do little more than appease Stalin and Stalin had already eyed out his potential territorial aquisitions as was evident in the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.

2nd front should have been opened earlier (1943) BEFORE Stalin crossed European borders, this would have made it much harder for him to occupy big part of Europe.

In any case the matter of fact is that whilst most of Western Europe gotten away from Stalin's clutches, the rest has fallen into his hands and it was not nice life for them. That's why accepting them into EU now and helping them out goes a long way towards making it up to them for the time under Soviet occupation - they "took one for the team" and did it for 50 years.

[sunnysan]

Eh?

Britain did a LOT to fight USSR - certainly more than anyone in Europe after WW2, only second to USA because of their resources. So that's a good thing - I am personally very happy to be citizen of a country where its leader (Churchill) made the right call on 2 critical people: Hitler and Stalin (USSR in general).

Some things done were not so pretty however, ie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5069500.stm

I can understand why Western Europe would not fight already occuped Eastern European countries and just tried to hold unoccupied territories, but generally speaking it should be said that Eastern Europe was left to be under regime that was no better than nazies.

As far as I am concerned Eastern European states that joined EU now getting some kind of compensation for the decades of Soviet rule that had to endure.

I would not say that was an example of "help", more like a concession to Stalin at Yalta. What the article declines to mention is that the Cossacks where to more or less of a degree allies of the Nazis. I am pretty sure that Churchill knew that they would be killed as Stalin had already massacred/deported Poles(The officiers at Katyn which the o'Malley report clearly proved was the Russians, and this was swept under the carpet),Tartars and numerous other ethnic groups he percieved to be a threat.

Churchills first public recognition of the Soviet Sphere of influence was in 1946.

As you have stated , and IMO especially in the case of Poland, who the Allies technically went to war to protect ended up as a vassal state of the USSR for nearly 50 years and as you mentioned was not really much better off than under the Nazis.

My point however still stands that the European Allied powers could do little more than appease Stalin and Stalin had already eyed out his potential territorial aquisitions as was evident in the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.

AFAICS , Stalin treated any kind of dissent in his sphere of influence brutally, regardless of borders, ethnicity or nationality.

To insinuate that the UK was responsible for this, is absurd, in the darkest days of the war the only thing at stake for the UK was their own sovereignty.

[Board Game Geek]

I prefer my country to govern itself, as it sees fit.

Hear ! Hear !

(Wondering if Czech President Vaclav Klaus is going to have a mysterious but totally explainable accident involving a Sherbet Dib Dab and a game of Buckaroo, in the near future ?)

[AtW]

And what exactly where the allies supposed to do?

Britain did a LOT to fight USSR - certainly more than anyone in Europe after WW2, only second to USA because of their resources. So that's a good thing - I am personally very happy to be citizen of a country where its leader (Churchill) made the right call on 2 critical people: Hitler and Stalin (USSR in general).

Some things done were not so pretty however, ie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5069500.stm

I can understand why Western Europe would not fight already occuped Eastern European countries and just tried to hold unoccupied territories, but generally speaking it should be said that Eastern Europe was left to be under regime that was no better than nazies.

As far as I am concerned Eastern European states that joined EU now getting some kind of compensation for the decades of Soviet rule that had to endure.

[threaded]

AtW is right.
If we want a level of prosperity we must be in Europe.
Otherwise we can be impoverished but free.
Our choice.
If you think the UK can go it alone having destroyed our economy, dream on.

Live free or diet!

[shaunbhoy]

if you can perhaps enlighten as to what else the other allies where supposed to do other than court the Russians I would be quite interested.

Word to the wise. Seeking enlightenment from AtW is a forlorn venture and doomed to failure. See your point though.

HTH