Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by Kregs View Post
    But after the 1921 war, Poland's borders became internationally recognized despite Ukrainian resistance. So, therefore, any attempts to alter by force the borders established at Riga and recognized by the Entente, violates international law.
    .
    Well, lets look at one historical even from THIS point.
    American war of independece.
    Were the American revolution violation of international law? Definitelly yes, if we take into consideration the fact it was the British Colony with officially internationaly reconnized borders and internationaly signed treaties.But from american point- the British dominantion was just the Violation of rights of native americans.
    So who care now about International law?
    As for Riga threaty , well , one can say it was sort of Colonian war betwen Poland and Russia and it was direct violation of law and rights of entires peoples who lived on territories , curved by those monsters. Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?And which true is actual?
    We may to undesratand the Western recognition of Treaty as a forced/temporary mean to stop a bloody war- still it was better then continie violence.However western powers , Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    I will try to answer your points one-by-one, Chevan, if you will be patient with some of my answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Well, lets look at one historical even from THIS point.
    American war of independece.
    Were the American revolution violation of international law? Definitelly yes, if we take into consideration the fact it was the British Colony with officially internationaly reconnized borders and internationaly signed treaties.But from american point- the British dominantion was just the Violation of rights of native americans.
    The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right. I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law? If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?

    After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.

    Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?
    Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.

    I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands--no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.

    Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.
    The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn't even clear on its own policy towards Poland's eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn't want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.

    So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn't have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn't have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn't have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...
    Whay then the "original englishmens" did sent then the regular royal army in America?Seems they didn't see the american "englishmens" like a juridical counterpart of themslef.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by Kregs View Post
    I will try to answer your points one-by-one, Chevan, if you will be patient with some of my answers.
    OK, its always interesting to hear the another arguments from a member who probably know more then me.
    The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right.
    Well,it sounds like the American revolt has been directed against the British colonian administration in America. Kinda the British Parliament and King didn't guess about violations of right in its' American colonies. All the "englishmens" seems were the equal all aroud the Commonwealth , right?
    And BRitish colonian autorities , seems , violated the British Stamp Act of 1765, when realized it on practice in British america?
    I think not. The British parliament( not the local administration) was fully responsible for "anti-american lawless".
    I fully admit that the American revolt was start as the fight for right of "englismens", but the problem was that the "original British" englismens didn't recognized them like at the same englishmens. And since event, when former colonies has declared Independence 4 jule , the problem could not lie any more time in plain of inner Commonwealth juridical system. it was getting matter of international affairs.Illegal from point of British parliament BTW( otherwise why had they send the Royal army , instead to sent parlamentaries )

    I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law?
    Formaly no, unless the newly born govenment of Carolina would not admit the laws that VIOLATES the right of the Americans from another states who lives or arrives carrently in Carolina( that is hardly possible in practise endeed- i meant to separate the civils and not violate the right of others). Also it the new authorities would NOT provoke the ethnical, race, religious conflicts that may case the war or ethnical crimes. Or to publich a laws that violates the Economical or juridical rights of the others americans, who out of Carolina. ( what exactly happend with British American colonies two centures back) Othervise the another states of USA may declare the war against the Carolina ( and thus it getting the international law subject).
    However in practice all the great nation has a buch of special means (ether juridical or political) against separatism. I remember few years ago the mass media PRed the scandal with American Indians Lakota whose leaders declared independence from USA. Their claims BTW , were based on legal basis -the 6-article of American constitution. Why , on your mind , they didn't get independence finally?
    becouse NO ONE nation will tolerate such a ethnic separatism.Nor Britain in Ireland, nor Spain( basks) not even the Russia in caucaus.
    If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?
    Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.
    After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.
    It's true and it works. But unfortinutelly not all the time
    Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.
    The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR
    Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
    As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.
    I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands--no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.
    Fully agree. And i never claimed the Russia is a innocent. We had absorbed a lot of nations endeed for a long time period of expansions. Same did the Poland BTW.

    The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn't even clear on its own policy towards Poland's eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn't want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.

    So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn't have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn't have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn't have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.
    Well all this point i agree. We know how often the fate of nations became the puppet in political games of the great nations. I beleive the both France and Britain want Poland to be the strong their allies. However why they didn't not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East? I guess coz they more trusted to poles. Or didn't believed to ukrainians. Anyway we saw just a tupical political trade in this case. Well, let go back to an Rigas treaty, which you claim to be recognized.
    It was signed between the Polish gov in face of Pilsudski and Boslevic gov. Who were the Bolshevics in 1921?
    Last edited by Chevan; 10-04-2011 at 06:49 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Whay then the "original englishmens" did sent then the regular royal army in America?Seems they didn't see the american "englishmens" like a juridical counterpart of themslef.
    They didn't so much send an army as they reinforced it. I'm no expert on the American Revolution/War of Independence. But I think one of the key British complaints was that the Americas were expensive to defend and the four French-Indian Wars, where colonial militias and the British Army fought the French and their native allies and where most of the American officers such as Gen. Washington gained their experience, were extremely costly and revenue had to come from somewhere. But there always had been a British garrison in what is the present day United States and Canada. And yes, they didn't see Americans as equal Englishmen, consequently the war became one of Independence rather than a rebellion, and also a bit of a bitter civil war between American Patriots and the Torys (Loyalists to the Crown)....

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...
    The right to be represented in parliament since they were being taxed and told what they could and could not do but had no say in any of it.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Quote Originally Posted by leccy View Post
    The right to be represented in parliament since they were being taxed and told what they could and could not do but had no say in any of it.
    In other words:
    The interpretation of a situation where the balance between economic influence and political influence is lost.

    And this goes for about every uprising. From the Ancient Roman transition from kingdom to republic, to the French revolution, over American Revolution, (even the Belgian one), and the American Civil War.
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    I do apologize for the delayed response, Chevan. I have been very ill lately, and I have not had time to respond. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability because I am not American, but I have only recently studied the history of this great country. Our concept of international law has changed so much over the span of 200 years that it is difficult to talk about the law with any certainty.


    The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR
    Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
    As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.
    It is quite simple: Poland has always considered the Right Bank an integral part of the Polish nation, which is why Pilsudski was eager to renege on his promise to the Ukrainians after he defeated the Soviets. The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was that Poland ignored Ukraine's desire to form a separate nation. The Poles have never considered Ukrainians a separate identity, but have always tried to convert them. In the 1600s, the Polish Catholics deliberately denied several rights to the remaining non-Polonized Ukrainians in the Right Bank; they banned Ukrainians from living in the cities (most Ukrainians were serfs or peasants, so this was not an issue until the reforms of 1848), they banned Orthodox priests from preaching, and even denied Ukrainians the right to marry whomever they choose. This mentality did disappear with the Great War, and as a result, the Poles ignored the Ukrainians' desires for separation. It is tragic.

    However why they didn't not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East?
    My guess is that the allies did not think very much of an independent Ukraine. You also have to consider the time frame of the Versailles Treaty. The treaty was written after the war, and the allies did not want another war on the continent, so they were willing to sign over Ukraine to satisfy Poland and stop the war in the east. Unfortunately, Ukraine was not consulted.

    Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.
    Was this an international violation before the League of Nations? I, myself, do not know, but I will most certainly check.
    Last edited by Kregs; 01-03-2013 at 12:15 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    250

    Default Re: 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland

    Simply reestablishing Poland's borders to what they were before the country was dissolved and absorbed by its neighbors seems reasonable. If people had attempted to expand the borders of Poland far beyond what it was historically then one could make a better argument that what was being done was unjust. The absorption of Poland by neighboring countries in the 1700s seems more unjust than the attempt to reestablsih Poland.

    As far as ethnicity, I don't think it is always important in determining where a countries borders should lie. Catherine the Great was able to rule Russia despite not being Russian and as far as I can tell Russians didn't see a contradiction in being ruled by someone who was German.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •