The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Huge PEW Survey of Eastern Europe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I meant to write about this PEW poll when it came out this May. Better late than never, I guess.

They highlight what they consider “9 key findings” here.

Here is what I found to be the most interesting, significant, and/or surprising:

poll-east-europe-religious-demographics

This doubles as a rough demographic tally. Russia is around 10% Muslim – around the same as Georgia, and lower than Bulgaria (you rarely tend to hear about their Muslim minorities).

poll-east-europe-democracy-free-markets

View on democracy and free markets: Amusingly, the Ukraine is least pro-market, Lenin statue topplings regardless.

poll-east-europe-russia-counters-usa

Majorities in all the Orthodox countries, even including rather not exactly Russophile Georgia and Romania, look to Russia to balance the influence of the West.

Ukraine is the sole glaring but understandable exception.

Even more curiously, 50% of Croatians (Salo is doing yeoman’s work) and even 34% of Poles support this.

In contrast, Bulgaria is rather more Russia skeptical than its stereotype as a supposedly Russophile country would imply.

poll-east-europe-russia-protection

poll-russia-protec-russians

There is strong support in both Russia and amongst Russians in the Near Abroad for protecting coethnics outside its borders.

Surprisingly, there is also near universal majority support for Russia protecting Orthodox Christians and ethnic Russians outside its borders – a majority agrees even in Georgia and Romania.

There is a pronounced split between west and east Ukraine on this question. Overall support is at 38% there. (Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk were not polled).

poll-east-europe-whos-to-blame

Who’s to blame for the conflict in the Donbass?

poll-east-europe-superior-culture

More Orthodox believe their culture to be superior than Catholic or especially Protestant ones. Poland here is perhaps especially surprising.

poll-east-europe-atheism

Russia is considerably more atheist than Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland. (I suspect almost entirely on account of the more atheist, Finno-admixed north).

Women are also universally more religious than men.

poll-east-europe-science-evolution

Acceptance of evolution. However, most curiously, the most evolution-skeptical, Armenians, also believe the most strongly that “science will eventually explain everything.”

poll-east-europe-homosexualityCaucasus almost monolithically “based” on God and homosexuals. Poland is actually pretty progressive these days.

map-east-europe-support-for-gay-marriage

Support for gay marriage based on the poll results.

I have sometimes joked that Belorussia can into Hajnal Line.

poll-east-europe-social-attitudes

That said, in geneal, opinions on social attitudes are pretty similar across Russia/Ukraine/Belarus.

poll-east-europe-diversity

That said, there doesn’t seem to be any strong correlation between “based” attitudes on God and social policy, and on the desirability of diversity.

The most pro-homogeneity peoples are the very religious Armenians and the very atheist Czechs.

poll-east-europe-fertility

This is pretty interesting – and surprising. Did Hungary produce Orban, or did Orban do this to Hungary?

poll-east-europe-stalin

Stalin remains very popular in Georgia as well as in Russia, just like 4 years ago.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Eastern Europe, Opinion Poll, Religion 
Hide 124 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. OT: I never have linked to CNN before, but this is amazing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/politics/lavar-ball-chris-cuomo-amazing-lines/index.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Trump has disappointed in general, but credit where credit's due - he has a special talent for picking the right battles in the culture war.

    First NFLgate showed that football americans and their liberal supporters to be unpatriotic.

    Now this serves to highlight that they are literal dindus and ingrates to boot.
    , @TheBoom
    Ballgate is a great case study to understand black behavior.

    1. Blacks behave irresponsibly and break the law.

    2. Whites come to the rescue and help blacks not face the consequences of their actions.

    3. Blacks show no appreciation or contrition. Instead, they try to give themselves credit.

    We wuzz Kangz indeed
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/huge-pew-survey-of-eastern-europe/#comment-2087865
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @Daniel Chieh
    OT: I never have linked to CNN before, but this is amazing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/politics/lavar-ball-chris-cuomo-amazing-lines/index.html

    Trump has disappointed in general, but credit where credit’s due – he has a special talent for picking the right battles in the culture war.

    First NFLgate showed that football americans and their liberal supporters to be unpatriotic.

    Now this serves to highlight that they are literal dindus and ingrates to boot.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Wency says:

    Thanks for highlighting the survey, it’s extremely interesting. I’m disappointed though that Slovakia was excluded for some unexplained reason. At 5 million people, it’s larger than several of the countries on this list.

    My sense (never having visited) is that Slovaks are fairly close to the Poles on many of these issues, being much more religious than the Czechs. This itself is curious; why are the Czechs so much more secular than the Slovaks, with whom they have been linked for most of modern history? The Czechs tried to go Protestant but were crushed and forced to stay Catholic, which may be a recipe for weak religious enthusiasm afterwards (see also France, where the Protestants were defeated only with much bloodshed, and which secularized faster than most other Catholic countries).

    But then, a similar fate befell the Slovaks, who tried to go Lutheran. So I’ve never heard an explanation as to why they differ from the Czechs on this issue. Perhaps related: Slovak enthusiasm for fascism seems to have been stronger than among the Czechs, which is partly why Hitler split them off as a puppet state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Slovakia should have been included. It is a great micro-cosmos of eastern Europe and tends to predict future trends. Possibly because of its location and demographic, or a combination of common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes.

    Poles are an outlier. They overdo their emotional nationalism and Catholicism, but as the survey shows Poles are also surprisingly insecure. A really hard history will do that to people, up and down too many times. Slovaks or Czechs are nothing like the Poles. There has never been any affinity and most Slovaks think of Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating. (If you mark any food product in Slovak stores as 'Made in Poland' nobody buys it because people don't trust the quality. Same is true in Czech R.)

    Czech atheism is over-stated, most people are strong cultural Christians. For historical reasons Czechs don't like to identify with Catholics (look up what Habsburgs and Jesuits did to them), and Protestants are disorganised. But it is more of an image by Prague intellectuals than a genuine 'atheist' world-view. In general, if you want to understand the Czech society simply ignore the Prague talkers - they are among the more bizarre people in the universe, often amusing, coddled by life, and totally unrepresentative of the country.

    In any case, Slovak and Czech attitudes are in my view a much better predictor of future developments.

    , @Niccolo Salo
    Czechs and Slovaks were only united in 1918 as the Bohemians and Moravians (now Czechs) spent centuries under Austrian rule while the Slovaks spent close to a thousand years under Magyar rule. This no doubt created some of the subtle cultural/governance/ideological differences found between the two peoples despite their great similarities. No non-Slav can be faulted for thinking that the two are interchangeable because they are quite similar to one another.

    Slovenes and Northern Croatians resemble one another quite a bit as well, right down to their use of "kaj/kay" for the word 'what'. Their cultures are very similar as are their temperaments, but there are cultural differences that reflect in governance for the simple reason that Slovenes spent a thousand years under the Franks/Germanics/Austrians while Northern Croatians spent eight centuries in a lopsided 'personal union' with the Magyars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Hupa says:

    Some of those are questionable, like the issue of abortion. Fewer Poles consider abortion as morally wrong, even though in polish surveys huge majority of people oppose abortion on demand and if anything, are in favour in abortion available in those special circumstances.

    Meanwhile in Romania, where abortion is on demand, more people see it as morally wrong. As for gay marriage – I seriously doubt as many as 32% of Poles support it. Unless there are ongoing changes in attitudes in Eastern Europe and I’m not aware of it, we’ll see.

    And btw. how funny when people see Eastern Europe as alternative to “Western degeneracy”, while the attitude towards pre-marital sex and contraception are the same. Also what the hell does it mean that “a woman has a responsibility to society to bear children”? It’s their natural function, so in what way can be this seen as a responsibility towards society?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I think historical specifics explain Poland/Romania.

    Abortion was allowed during the Communist era. Nationalism heavily intertwined with Catholicism. Legal abortion goes by the wayside after Communism as something associated with the Communist regime.

    In Romania, abortions illegal - except for members of the Communist Party, to rub the humiliation in - because Ceausescu wants fast population growth to increase Romania's national power. Abortion legalized since conversely its criminalization was associated with the Communist regime.
    , @polskijoe
    Unfortunately the younger generation in Poland
    is a little more "liberal" in regards to those issues.

    I have looked at many polls in English and Polish
    on how they see things. There is a slow shift on many matters (some good, some bad).

    Many countries who join the Western alliance, become
    more materialist and more liberal quickly or slowly over time.

    That is my main objection the "friendship" with usa, or some other western countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Brabantian says: • Website

    Thanks very much to Anatoly Karlin for this superb material … But what about Slovakia … a key member of the Visegrád 4 on which so many pin their hopes … and Melania’s Slovenia? Were they not included in this survey, because they joined the euro currency & are thus counted amongst the hopelessly lost?

    Re Trump, despite my usual readiness to denounce various frauds & sell-outs – and Trump’s clear ties to various dodgy characters over decades – It seems clear that the man, for all his flaws, has some genuine reformism in his heart … and let us not forget that of the previous 10 USA Presidents, they ran brutal take-downs of 4 them, two of them shot (JFK, plus Reagan just wounded, by the kid of a guy working for George Bush’s brother, no less), and 2 impeached on stitched-up rubbish (Nixon who resigned after a CIA-&-military ‘Silent Coup’ fronted by a Navy intel guy at the Washington Post, & Bill Clinton hit by a honeypot agent when he balked at mass-murdering Serbians)

    To Trump’s honour, it seems the Deep State has many more resources than usual threatening him … After all, Trump did legitimise the truth that The News Is Fake … and Trump told us in his greatest speech, the epic 5 minute ‘Trump Names the Globalists’, that the cabal will tell any lie, commit any crime to destroy us … Those magnificent aspects of Trump, will outlive whatever he does, whatever happens to him … this Trump here is whom we will all remember
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ud4sHtwLPs

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Talha says:

    Excellent summary article on all these findings. Definitely surprised me on many points.

    A couple of really weird things though:
    1) Eastern Europe’s population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids – that’s just weird.
    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong – the numbers are pretty shocking. Drugs I get, but alcohol? Don’t Eastern Europeans love their alcohol?

    Also, the Serbians, Croats and Bosnians seem to have the greatest respect for differences. Possibly owing to them going through a period when they were hyper-homogeneous-society people – a recent brutal civil war along ethnic/religious fault lines might knock that out of you.

    Women are also universally more religious than men.

    Imam Fakhruddin Razi (ra) once told his students; “I urge you to have the faith of old women!”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    1) Eastern Europe’s population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids – that’s just weird.
     
    Communism froze social attitudes.

    Women owe it to society to have children = sounds icky to modern ears. No so much to 40+ year old East Europeans.

    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong – the numbers are pretty shocking.
     
    And whites in Red states in the US support "family values" more than whites in Blue ones, even though they fail to live up to it as well as Blue ones.

    We want what we lack.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. neutral says:

    I wish that these kind of surveys would include racial attitudes. Things like their views on miscegenation, mass third world immigration, if Britain/France/Germany/etc becoming non white are positive or negative things, if there are racial differences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Here's one I posted a while ago.

    https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3397993/link_0Ln46CulGXo5KJjKlu18z3jwQnBcx7vx,w1200h627.jpg

    Pretty amusing: Catholicuck Poland vs. based atheist Czechia. German_reader will have a field day with this.

    Unfortunately, doesn't include non-EU countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Talha
    Excellent summary article on all these findings. Definitely surprised me on many points.

    A couple of really weird things though:
    1) Eastern Europe's population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids - that's just weird.
    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong - the numbers are pretty shocking. Drugs I get, but alcohol? Don't Eastern Europeans love their alcohol?

    Also, the Serbians, Croats and Bosnians seem to have the greatest respect for differences. Possibly owing to them going through a period when they were hyper-homogeneous-society people - a recent brutal civil war along ethnic/religious fault lines might knock that out of you.


    Women are also universally more religious than men.
     
    Imam Fakhruddin Razi (ra) once told his students; "I urge you to have the faith of old women!"

    Peace.

    1) Eastern Europe’s population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids – that’s just weird.

    Communism froze social attitudes.

    Women owe it to society to have children = sounds icky to modern ears. No so much to 40+ year old East Europeans.

    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong – the numbers are pretty shocking.

    And whites in Red states in the US support “family values” more than whites in Blue ones, even though they fail to live up to it as well as Blue ones.

    We want what we lack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mr. Karlin,

    Women owe it to society to have children
     
    LOL! t=That sounds a bit Big-Brotherish, for sure. Maybe they should have asked a neutral question; How many children are ideal for a woman to have?

    We want what we lack.
     
    OK, I can see that. I'd say you would see something like this if Muslim nations were polled about "should one pray 5 times a day". Many would say "yes" because they know that it's the right thing to do, even though they personally haven't prayed in a few weeks.

    I also think every smoker out there is under no delusions about how harmful it is, but keep on going. So I guess this does explain things a bit.

    Peace.

    , @Sam Haysom
    This is a common fallacy- whites in red states do better in family value metrics that whites in blue states. Red states just happen to have a ton of blacks in them who perform horribly in this regard.

    The only metric that is occasionally an outlier in these surveys is illegimate births- which is the result of unwanted pregnancies in the red states being for more likely to be carried to term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Hupa
    Some of those are questionable, like the issue of abortion. Fewer Poles consider abortion as morally wrong, even though in polish surveys huge majority of people oppose abortion on demand and if anything, are in favour in abortion available in those special circumstances.

    Meanwhile in Romania, where abortion is on demand, more people see it as morally wrong. As for gay marriage - I seriously doubt as many as 32% of Poles support it. Unless there are ongoing changes in attitudes in Eastern Europe and I'm not aware of it, we'll see.

    And btw. how funny when people see Eastern Europe as alternative to "Western degeneracy", while the attitude towards pre-marital sex and contraception are the same. Also what the hell does it mean that "a woman has a responsibility to society to bear children"? It's their natural function, so in what way can be this seen as a responsibility towards society?

    I think historical specifics explain Poland/Romania.

    Abortion was allowed during the Communist era. Nationalism heavily intertwined with Catholicism. Legal abortion goes by the wayside after Communism as something associated with the Communist regime.

    In Romania, abortions illegal – except for members of the Communist Party, to rub the humiliation in – because Ceausescu wants fast population growth to increase Romania’s national power. Abortion legalized since conversely its criminalization was associated with the Communist regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hupa
    Possible, I would also attribute that to the fact that communism really squeezed the Church and really dechristianized parts of the country, it isn't like catholicism was as vibrant and alive as during the Interwar period. For instance, the catholic weekly magazines, one of which is now the biggest weekly magazine in Poland with some 400 000 copies sold per week, were only allowed in 1980s, when communism was in its decline phase. I wonder how the abortion issue will develop in Romania though, because their Church will also be gaining some ground there possibly
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @neutral
    I wish that these kind of surveys would include racial attitudes. Things like their views on miscegenation, mass third world immigration, if Britain/France/Germany/etc becoming non white are positive or negative things, if there are racial differences.

    Here’s one I posted a while ago.

    Pretty amusing: Catholicuck Poland vs. based atheist Czechia. German_reader will have a field day with this.

    Unfortunately, doesn’t include non-EU countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL!!! The Swiss are neutral! didn't see that coming!
    , @Polish Perspective
    That survey was done before the 2015 refugee crisis. I'd wager that Poland's numbers are a lot better now. But that doesn't explain away the fact that we were on a weak starting point.

    Still, Slovakia is even more 'based' than Czechia, certainly on the JQ, and they are a much more religious society. So, atheism per se doesn't give you anything. Sweden is very atheist yet it has become a meme, so anyone trying to push a pro/anti Christianity agenda re: diversity is only going to end up looking like a fool.

    It should also be contrasted with this: http://www.unz.com/uploads/2017/11/poll-east-europe-diversity.png

    That was done post-2015, and it doesn't square with Poland's much more liberal attitudes pre-2015. I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity, but extremely anti-homosexuality. I'd prefer the Czech approach of social liberalism where it makes sense and discipline on diveristy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Talha says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    1) Eastern Europe’s population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids – that’s just weird.
     
    Communism froze social attitudes.

    Women owe it to society to have children = sounds icky to modern ears. No so much to 40+ year old East Europeans.

    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong – the numbers are pretty shocking.
     
    And whites in Red states in the US support "family values" more than whites in Blue ones, even though they fail to live up to it as well as Blue ones.

    We want what we lack.

    Hey Mr. Karlin,

    Women owe it to society to have children

    LOL! t=That sounds a bit Big-Brotherish, for sure. Maybe they should have asked a neutral question; How many children are ideal for a woman to have?

    We want what we lack.

    OK, I can see that. I’d say you would see something like this if Muslim nations were polled about “should one pray 5 times a day”. Many would say “yes” because they know that it’s the right thing to do, even though they personally haven’t prayed in a few weeks.

    I also think every smoker out there is under no delusions about how harmful it is, but keep on going. So I guess this does explain things a bit.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Talha says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Here's one I posted a while ago.

    https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3397993/link_0Ln46CulGXo5KJjKlu18z3jwQnBcx7vx,w1200h627.jpg

    Pretty amusing: Catholicuck Poland vs. based atheist Czechia. German_reader will have a field day with this.

    Unfortunately, doesn't include non-EU countries.

    LOL!!! The Swiss are neutral! didn’t see that coming!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Anatoly Karlin
    Here's one I posted a while ago.

    https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3397993/link_0Ln46CulGXo5KJjKlu18z3jwQnBcx7vx,w1200h627.jpg

    Pretty amusing: Catholicuck Poland vs. based atheist Czechia. German_reader will have a field day with this.

    Unfortunately, doesn't include non-EU countries.

    That survey was done before the 2015 refugee crisis. I’d wager that Poland’s numbers are a lot better now. But that doesn’t explain away the fact that we were on a weak starting point.

    Still, Slovakia is even more ‘based’ than Czechia, certainly on the JQ, and they are a much more religious society. So, atheism per se doesn’t give you anything. Sweden is very atheist yet it has become a meme, so anyone trying to push a pro/anti Christianity agenda re: diversity is only going to end up looking like a fool.

    It should also be contrasted with this:
    That was done post-2015, and it doesn’t square with Poland’s much more liberal attitudes pre-2015. I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity, but extremely anti-homosexuality. I’d prefer the Czech approach of social liberalism where it makes sense and discipline on diveristy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity
     
    Most likely in the "diversity" people of Russia put a completely different meaning than people in Europe. The attitude towards Muslim migrants in Russia is extremely negative.
    , @anonymous coward

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity
     
    The question was about empire-building, not "diversity".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. melanf says:
    @Polish Perspective
    That survey was done before the 2015 refugee crisis. I'd wager that Poland's numbers are a lot better now. But that doesn't explain away the fact that we were on a weak starting point.

    Still, Slovakia is even more 'based' than Czechia, certainly on the JQ, and they are a much more religious society. So, atheism per se doesn't give you anything. Sweden is very atheist yet it has become a meme, so anyone trying to push a pro/anti Christianity agenda re: diversity is only going to end up looking like a fool.

    It should also be contrasted with this: http://www.unz.com/uploads/2017/11/poll-east-europe-diversity.png

    That was done post-2015, and it doesn't square with Poland's much more liberal attitudes pre-2015. I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity, but extremely anti-homosexuality. I'd prefer the Czech approach of social liberalism where it makes sense and discipline on diveristy.

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity

    Most likely in the “diversity” people of Russia put a completely different meaning than people in Europe. The attitude towards Muslim migrants in Russia is extremely negative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Polish Perspective
    I would certainly hope so. We already have to deal with undisciplined Westerners, incapable of freeing themselves of cultural relatively and ethnomasochism. I previously posted that Russia increasingly looks to be a poorer, more corrupt copy of the West rather than a real alternative to it. I hope I'm wrong. But your leader has a habit of saying strange things:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/12/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy.html

    Orthodox Christianity 'closer' to Islam than Catholicism? Really? Or let's not forget his open border policies with Central Asia. Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity. Maybe Putin isn't an outlier, rather just gives voice to the feelings of the majority.

    So far, I haven't seen anything that would prove otherwise. I'm aware that there is a genuine nationalist opposition to Putin in Russia. I'm also aware that they are extremely marginal. And we're talking about a country that is already 10% muslim.

    This is why the blind worship of Russia, often from low information WNs in the US, is so hilarious to me. They don't know anything about Eastern Europe. And I say this coming from a country that is far from a role model on these issue. As I already pointed out, CZ/SK are doing much better on these issues. But whatever problems Poland may have - and they are very real - we're much better off than Russia. And, the youth are becoming more nationalist:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/why-central-europes-youth-roll-right-voting-politics-visegard/


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/more-girls-fewer-skinheads-polands-far-right-wrestles-with-changing-image

    , @German_reader
    I agree, the question is meaningless without explaining what actually is meant by "diversity". Just as "immigrants" aren't a meaningful category.
    I guess people in the Balkans who are "pro-diversity" think along the lines of "We don't want another bloody civil war, we have to get along"...which under the conditions of a country like Bosnia probably is quite sensible. Also probably a lot of nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I'd suppose that's rather different from what "diversity" has come to mean in Western Europe (endless Muslim and African immigration, if you object you're a Nazi).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @melanf

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity
     
    Most likely in the "diversity" people of Russia put a completely different meaning than people in Europe. The attitude towards Muslim migrants in Russia is extremely negative.

    I would certainly hope so. We already have to deal with undisciplined Westerners, incapable of freeing themselves of cultural relatively and ethnomasochism. I previously posted that Russia increasingly looks to be a poorer, more corrupt copy of the West rather than a real alternative to it. I hope I’m wrong. But your leader has a habit of saying strange things:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/12/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy.html

    Orthodox Christianity ‘closer’ to Islam than Catholicism? Really? Or let’s not forget his open border policies with Central Asia. Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity. Maybe Putin isn’t an outlier, rather just gives voice to the feelings of the majority.

    So far, I haven’t seen anything that would prove otherwise. I’m aware that there is a genuine nationalist opposition to Putin in Russia. I’m also aware that they are extremely marginal. And we’re talking about a country that is already 10% muslim.

    This is why the blind worship of Russia, often from low information WNs in the US, is so hilarious to me. They don’t know anything about Eastern Europe. And I say this coming from a country that is far from a role model on these issue. As I already pointed out, CZ/SK are doing much better on these issues. But whatever problems Poland may have – and they are very real – we’re much better off than Russia. And, the youth are becoming more nationalist:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/why-central-europes-youth-roll-right-voting-politics-visegard/

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/more-girls-fewer-skinheads-polands-far-right-wrestles-with-changing-image

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.
     
    In Russia live (and always lived) in different ethnic groups. Here's an example of one of the indigenous people of Russia (I'll bet the participants in this discussion will not be able to guess this ethnic group, without searching the Internet)

    http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/1711/49/b97ee54616f1.jpg

    http://s010.radikal.ru/i314/1711/9b/d9228770b9a5.jpg

    Because of this, for Russia, the coexistence of different peoples is the norm. The attitude towards migrants from Central Asia is a totally different subject. For this it is necessary to ask not about "diversity", but about the attitude towards migrants.


    So far, I haven’t seen anything that would prove otherwise.
     
    A typical advertisement:
    Apartments for Rent, only for Russian/Slavic families
    http://s017.radikal.ru/i415/1304/96/179be3022e3d.jpg

    meaning - no migrants

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @ melanf makes a good point, diversity in Russia has somewhat different connotations in Russia.

    His anecdote quantified: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/moscow-tolerance/

    I think this video is pretty representative about what the elites believe and (spent money to) propagandize on the subject:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzINR40D7ds

    Said diversity does include the occasional immigrant (see 0:43). Of course you would also be right to say that with such attitudes they may not remain "occasional" indefinitely. Kirill Nesterov (the founder of ROGPR) has repeatedly argued that current United Russia = 1980s GOP, hyper urrah-patriots that kickstarted America's transformation into a Latino country.
    , @AP
    Everything you wrote is correct (as usual ) except this part:

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.
     
    Russians are indeed proud of being diverse, but this pride involves non-Russian ethic groups such as Tatars, etc. and not migrants.

    A contrast: I knew a couple families of exiled Germans who left right after World War II and preserved those old values (it is not what one expects - they like blacks and Africans, and Muslims - but hate Jews and have contempt for Americans - in my presence they were diplomatic about Slavs). A dentist, from Danzig, was fond of saying that people of pure blood never needed orthodontics. In Russia one usually hears the opposite - that mixed blood makes one stronger and such diversity makes Russians the strongest/best.

    So Russian respect for diversity is not the same as what is meant in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. 5371 says:

    I really wouldn’t take this poll so seriously. Even on something so basic as affiliation, they used a percentage of Catholics in BiH less than half the true one. What else did they get wrong?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. TheBoom says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    OT: I never have linked to CNN before, but this is amazing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/politics/lavar-ball-chris-cuomo-amazing-lines/index.html

    Ballgate is a great case study to understand black behavior.

    1. Blacks behave irresponsibly and break the law.

    2. Whites come to the rescue and help blacks not face the consequences of their actions.

    3. Blacks show no appreciation or contrition. Instead, they try to give themselves credit.

    We wuzz Kangz indeed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Polish Perspective
    That survey was done before the 2015 refugee crisis. I'd wager that Poland's numbers are a lot better now. But that doesn't explain away the fact that we were on a weak starting point.

    Still, Slovakia is even more 'based' than Czechia, certainly on the JQ, and they are a much more religious society. So, atheism per se doesn't give you anything. Sweden is very atheist yet it has become a meme, so anyone trying to push a pro/anti Christianity agenda re: diversity is only going to end up looking like a fool.

    It should also be contrasted with this: http://www.unz.com/uploads/2017/11/poll-east-europe-diversity.png

    That was done post-2015, and it doesn't square with Poland's much more liberal attitudes pre-2015. I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity, but extremely anti-homosexuality. I'd prefer the Czech approach of social liberalism where it makes sense and discipline on diveristy.

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity

    The question was about empire-building, not “diversity”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. melanf says:
    @Polish Perspective
    I would certainly hope so. We already have to deal with undisciplined Westerners, incapable of freeing themselves of cultural relatively and ethnomasochism. I previously posted that Russia increasingly looks to be a poorer, more corrupt copy of the West rather than a real alternative to it. I hope I'm wrong. But your leader has a habit of saying strange things:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/12/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy.html

    Orthodox Christianity 'closer' to Islam than Catholicism? Really? Or let's not forget his open border policies with Central Asia. Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity. Maybe Putin isn't an outlier, rather just gives voice to the feelings of the majority.

    So far, I haven't seen anything that would prove otherwise. I'm aware that there is a genuine nationalist opposition to Putin in Russia. I'm also aware that they are extremely marginal. And we're talking about a country that is already 10% muslim.

    This is why the blind worship of Russia, often from low information WNs in the US, is so hilarious to me. They don't know anything about Eastern Europe. And I say this coming from a country that is far from a role model on these issue. As I already pointed out, CZ/SK are doing much better on these issues. But whatever problems Poland may have - and they are very real - we're much better off than Russia. And, the youth are becoming more nationalist:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/why-central-europes-youth-roll-right-voting-politics-visegard/


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/more-girls-fewer-skinheads-polands-far-right-wrestles-with-changing-image

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.

    In Russia live (and always lived) in different ethnic groups. Here’s an example of one of the indigenous people of Russia (I’ll bet the participants in this discussion will not be able to guess this ethnic group, without searching the Internet)

    Because of this, for Russia, the coexistence of different peoples is the norm. The attitude towards migrants from Central Asia is a totally different subject. For this it is necessary to ask not about “diversity”, but about the attitude towards migrants.

    So far, I haven’t seen anything that would prove otherwise.

    A typical advertisement:
    Apartments for Rent, only for Russian/Slavic families
    meaning – no migrants

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCMG
    melanf, Plushies are an ethnic group? I just thought they were weirdos........
    , @Philip Owen
    Mordavians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Polish Perspective
    I would certainly hope so. We already have to deal with undisciplined Westerners, incapable of freeing themselves of cultural relatively and ethnomasochism. I previously posted that Russia increasingly looks to be a poorer, more corrupt copy of the West rather than a real alternative to it. I hope I'm wrong. But your leader has a habit of saying strange things:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/12/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy.html

    Orthodox Christianity 'closer' to Islam than Catholicism? Really? Or let's not forget his open border policies with Central Asia. Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity. Maybe Putin isn't an outlier, rather just gives voice to the feelings of the majority.

    So far, I haven't seen anything that would prove otherwise. I'm aware that there is a genuine nationalist opposition to Putin in Russia. I'm also aware that they are extremely marginal. And we're talking about a country that is already 10% muslim.

    This is why the blind worship of Russia, often from low information WNs in the US, is so hilarious to me. They don't know anything about Eastern Europe. And I say this coming from a country that is far from a role model on these issue. As I already pointed out, CZ/SK are doing much better on these issues. But whatever problems Poland may have - and they are very real - we're much better off than Russia. And, the youth are becoming more nationalist:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/why-central-europes-youth-roll-right-voting-politics-visegard/


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/more-girls-fewer-skinheads-polands-far-right-wrestles-with-changing-image

    @ melanf makes a good point, diversity in Russia has somewhat different connotations in Russia.

    His anecdote quantified: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/moscow-tolerance/

    I think this video is pretty representative about what the elites believe and (spent money to) propagandize on the subject:

    Said diversity does include the occasional immigrant (see 0:43). Of course you would also be right to say that with such attitudes they may not remain “occasional” indefinitely. Kirill Nesterov (the founder of ROGPR) has repeatedly argued that current United Russia = 1980s GOP, hyper urrah-patriots that kickstarted America’s transformation into a Latino country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @melanf

    I also find it hilarious that Russia is among the most cucked countries on diversity
     
    Most likely in the "diversity" people of Russia put a completely different meaning than people in Europe. The attitude towards Muslim migrants in Russia is extremely negative.

    I agree, the question is meaningless without explaining what actually is meant by “diversity”. Just as “immigrants” aren’t a meaningful category.
    I guess people in the Balkans who are “pro-diversity” think along the lines of “We don’t want another bloody civil war, we have to get along”…which under the conditions of a country like Bosnia probably is quite sensible. Also probably a lot of nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I’d suppose that’s rather different from what “diversity” has come to mean in Western Europe (endless Muslim and African immigration, if you object you’re a Nazi).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I’d suppose that’s rather different from what “diversity” has come to mean in Western Europe"
     
    This is an under-appreciated dynamic that will drive the future of eastern Europe (and of EU). Most common attitude that is growing very fast is that Western meddlers destroyed a lot of really good stuff in the east and are actively trying to replace it with all the bad stuff in the West (like migrants, crime, insecurity...).

    A generation ago, easterners wanted what was good in the West, while preserving what they already had. There is a realisation now that West has tried to do the opposite. In spite of all the pretty speeches and slogans, West in effect 'broke its promises, and carried out its threats'. The reality of multi-cultural nonsense, migrants, colonial assembly economy, financial domination, and just pure ignorant arrogance by the West has hit a tipping point. The 2015 migrant trek and the incredible reaction by Western politicians has permanently changed the political landscape.

    I still run into Western morons who think that by more communication outreach (=propaganda), economic threats or even by force, they will be able to implement their open-borders/multicultural dream-land in the east. They don't understand that after 2015 there is a zero chance that the population there would ever go along with it. And the politicians - no matter how scared or corrupt - have to reflect this. But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down. This will backfire badly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. AP says:
    @Polish Perspective
    I would certainly hope so. We already have to deal with undisciplined Westerners, incapable of freeing themselves of cultural relatively and ethnomasochism. I previously posted that Russia increasingly looks to be a poorer, more corrupt copy of the West rather than a real alternative to it. I hope I'm wrong. But your leader has a habit of saying strange things:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2010/12/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy.html

    Orthodox Christianity 'closer' to Islam than Catholicism? Really? Or let's not forget his open border policies with Central Asia. Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity. Maybe Putin isn't an outlier, rather just gives voice to the feelings of the majority.

    So far, I haven't seen anything that would prove otherwise. I'm aware that there is a genuine nationalist opposition to Putin in Russia. I'm also aware that they are extremely marginal. And we're talking about a country that is already 10% muslim.

    This is why the blind worship of Russia, often from low information WNs in the US, is so hilarious to me. They don't know anything about Eastern Europe. And I say this coming from a country that is far from a role model on these issue. As I already pointed out, CZ/SK are doing much better on these issues. But whatever problems Poland may have - and they are very real - we're much better off than Russia. And, the youth are becoming more nationalist:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/why-central-europes-youth-roll-right-voting-politics-visegard/


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/more-girls-fewer-skinheads-polands-far-right-wrestles-with-changing-image

    Everything you wrote is correct (as usual ) except this part:

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.

    Russians are indeed proud of being diverse, but this pride involves non-Russian ethic groups such as Tatars, etc. and not migrants.

    A contrast: I knew a couple families of exiled Germans who left right after World War II and preserved those old values (it is not what one expects – they like blacks and Africans, and Muslims – but hate Jews and have contempt for Americans – in my presence they were diplomatic about Slavs). A dentist, from Danzig, was fond of saying that people of pure blood never needed orthodontics. In Russia one usually hears the opposite – that mixed blood makes one stronger and such diversity makes Russians the strongest/best.

    So Russian respect for diversity is not the same as what is meant in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DCMG
    AP on a simplistic level there's a big difference in how Americans describe their ethnicity and how Russians do. Americans may say they are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish- Americans, Mexican-Americans, act. On the other hand with Russians it's always Russian first Orthodox, or Moslem or Buddhist, they are Russians first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. DCMG says:
    @melanf

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.
     
    In Russia live (and always lived) in different ethnic groups. Here's an example of one of the indigenous people of Russia (I'll bet the participants in this discussion will not be able to guess this ethnic group, without searching the Internet)

    http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/1711/49/b97ee54616f1.jpg

    http://s010.radikal.ru/i314/1711/9b/d9228770b9a5.jpg

    Because of this, for Russia, the coexistence of different peoples is the norm. The attitude towards migrants from Central Asia is a totally different subject. For this it is necessary to ask not about "diversity", but about the attitude towards migrants.


    So far, I haven’t seen anything that would prove otherwise.
     
    A typical advertisement:
    Apartments for Rent, only for Russian/Slavic families
    http://s017.radikal.ru/i415/1304/96/179be3022e3d.jpg

    meaning - no migrants

    melanf, Plushies are an ethnic group? I just thought they were weirdos……..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. DCMG says:
    @AP
    Everything you wrote is correct (as usual ) except this part:

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.
     
    Russians are indeed proud of being diverse, but this pride involves non-Russian ethic groups such as Tatars, etc. and not migrants.

    A contrast: I knew a couple families of exiled Germans who left right after World War II and preserved those old values (it is not what one expects - they like blacks and Africans, and Muslims - but hate Jews and have contempt for Americans - in my presence they were diplomatic about Slavs). A dentist, from Danzig, was fond of saying that people of pure blood never needed orthodontics. In Russia one usually hears the opposite - that mixed blood makes one stronger and such diversity makes Russians the strongest/best.

    So Russian respect for diversity is not the same as what is meant in the West.

    AP on a simplistic level there’s a big difference in how Americans describe their ethnicity and how Russians do. Americans may say they are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish- Americans, Mexican-Americans, act. On the other hand with Russians it’s always Russian first Orthodox, or Moslem or Buddhist, they are Russians first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct, on the other hand Russians will sometimes repeat the phrase, scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar. I'm quite close to someone who is half Polish and part Kalmyk but she only considers herself to be a Russian.
    , @RadicalCenter
    This gets the traditional American assimilationist view exactly backwards.

    The identity listed first is a modifier, e.g. Italian or German or Polish or French etc.

    The thing listed “second”, American, is the primary and unifying identity & allegiance.

    By contrast, Jews typically see”Russian Jew”or “german Jew”or “American Jew”, meaning that Jewishness is what matters most and there are merely various types of Jew.
    , @Mikhail
    Specifically, the Russian language respectfully notes that there're ethnic Russian citizens of Russia, as well as non-ethnic Russian citizens of that country. Some in the West have misrepresented this distinction along the lines of a kind of apartheid.

    It'd be interesting to find a stat on the ethnicity of those saying they're ethnic Russian, while being at least 1/4 another ethnic group or groups.

    Russia's greatness is largely the result of having a considerable centuries long multi-ethnic dynamic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Can this be verified as real news?

    https://theoldcontinent.eu/rip-angelica/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. AP says:
    @DCMG
    AP on a simplistic level there's a big difference in how Americans describe their ethnicity and how Russians do. Americans may say they are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish- Americans, Mexican-Americans, act. On the other hand with Russians it's always Russian first Orthodox, or Moslem or Buddhist, they are Russians first.

    Correct, on the other hand Russians will sometimes repeat the phrase, scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar. I’m quite close to someone who is half Polish and part Kalmyk but she only considers herself to be a Russian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Beckow says:
    @Wency
    Thanks for highlighting the survey, it's extremely interesting. I'm disappointed though that Slovakia was excluded for some unexplained reason. At 5 million people, it's larger than several of the countries on this list.

    My sense (never having visited) is that Slovaks are fairly close to the Poles on many of these issues, being much more religious than the Czechs. This itself is curious; why are the Czechs so much more secular than the Slovaks, with whom they have been linked for most of modern history? The Czechs tried to go Protestant but were crushed and forced to stay Catholic, which may be a recipe for weak religious enthusiasm afterwards (see also France, where the Protestants were defeated only with much bloodshed, and which secularized faster than most other Catholic countries).

    But then, a similar fate befell the Slovaks, who tried to go Lutheran. So I've never heard an explanation as to why they differ from the Czechs on this issue. Perhaps related: Slovak enthusiasm for fascism seems to have been stronger than among the Czechs, which is partly why Hitler split them off as a puppet state.

    Slovakia should have been included. It is a great micro-cosmos of eastern Europe and tends to predict future trends. Possibly because of its location and demographic, or a combination of common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes.

    Poles are an outlier. They overdo their emotional nationalism and Catholicism, but as the survey shows Poles are also surprisingly insecure. A really hard history will do that to people, up and down too many times. Slovaks or Czechs are nothing like the Poles. There has never been any affinity and most Slovaks think of Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating. (If you mark any food product in Slovak stores as ‘Made in Poland’ nobody buys it because people don’t trust the quality. Same is true in Czech R.)

    Czech atheism is over-stated, most people are strong cultural Christians. For historical reasons Czechs don’t like to identify with Catholics (look up what Habsburgs and Jesuits did to them), and Protestants are disorganised. But it is more of an image by Prague intellectuals than a genuine ‘atheist’ world-view. In general, if you want to understand the Czech society simply ignore the Prague talkers – they are among the more bizarre people in the universe, often amusing, coddled by life, and totally unrepresentative of the country.

    In any case, Slovak and Czech attitudes are in my view a much better predictor of future developments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    most Slovaks think of Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating.
     
    Interestingly, in Russia's opinion about the poles better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Beckow says:
    @German_reader
    I agree, the question is meaningless without explaining what actually is meant by "diversity". Just as "immigrants" aren't a meaningful category.
    I guess people in the Balkans who are "pro-diversity" think along the lines of "We don't want another bloody civil war, we have to get along"...which under the conditions of a country like Bosnia probably is quite sensible. Also probably a lot of nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I'd suppose that's rather different from what "diversity" has come to mean in Western Europe (endless Muslim and African immigration, if you object you're a Nazi).

    “nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I’d suppose that’s rather different from what “diversity” has come to mean in Western Europe”

    This is an under-appreciated dynamic that will drive the future of eastern Europe (and of EU). Most common attitude that is growing very fast is that Western meddlers destroyed a lot of really good stuff in the east and are actively trying to replace it with all the bad stuff in the West (like migrants, crime, insecurity…).

    A generation ago, easterners wanted what was good in the West, while preserving what they already had. There is a realisation now that West has tried to do the opposite. In spite of all the pretty speeches and slogans, West in effect ‘broke its promises, and carried out its threats‘. The reality of multi-cultural nonsense, migrants, colonial assembly economy, financial domination, and just pure ignorant arrogance by the West has hit a tipping point. The 2015 migrant trek and the incredible reaction by Western politicians has permanently changed the political landscape.

    I still run into Western morons who think that by more communication outreach (=propaganda), economic threats or even by force, they will be able to implement their open-borders/multicultural dream-land in the east. They don’t understand that after 2015 there is a zero chance that the population there would ever go along with it. And the politicians – no matter how scared or corrupt – have to reflect this. But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down. This will backfire badly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down.
     
    European court opens hearing on recognizing same-sex unions

    BUCHAREST, Romania — The European Court of Justice on Tuesday opened a hearing on the recognition of same-sex marriages in European Union countries where they aren’t legal.

    The hearing in Luxembourg came after Romania’s constitutional court asked the European court to make a ruling on the issue amid a court case in Romania brought by a Romanian-American couple who want their 2010 union to be recognized. Same-sex marriage isn’t legally recognized in Romania, which is an EU member.

    Iustina Ionescu, a Romanian lawyer, told the court the couple’s marriage should be recognized based on the EU principle of free movement.

    “We have confidence in the wisdom of the European judges that they will have the capacity to take a decision in our favor which corrects the injustices in Romania,” said Adrian Coman, who has been fighting since 2012 to get his marriage to U.S. citizen Claibourn Robert Hamilton legally recognized in the same way it would be if they were a heterosexual couple.

    However, representatives from Romania, Hungary, Poland and Latvia told the court Tuesday they don’t want the term “spouse” to include same-sex unions.

    European Commission officials said same-sex marriages or civil partnerships are recognized or enjoy legal protection in 22 out of EU’s 28 members. Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia currently do not offer legal protection to same-sex couples.

    Opposition to same-sex relationships is often fierce in Romania, where homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2002.
     
    http://www.therepublic.com/2017/11/21/eu-europe-same-sex-marriage/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. AP says:

    Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating.

    Very interesting. I don’t think Poles think about Slovaks much. Their opinion of Czechs is that Czechs are weak, and always bend to the strongest force. They didn’t resist the Nazis at all basically, despite having a decent army, they were very subservient to the Soviets (much more so than were the Poles), and they went full materialist/liberal post 1990. They are described as feathers, blowing in the wind. (their behavior is rational given that they have always been a small nation, whereas Poles have not always been)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes"
     
    ...when you are a small nation in a geographically exposed location, the above can be described as 'weakness'. It applies to both Czechs and Slovaks and it has worked better than Polish 'resistance' and volatility, at least so far. Czechs and Slovaks are much richer, better governed, and have had a more quiet history with fewer tragedies.

    My point is about attitudes: Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so). They also burn bridges and gain no allies. One can admire it from distance, but it has never worked. It introduces a large element of mythology and what can only be described as 'lying'. Czechs and Slovaks, on the other hand, pride themselves on 'living in truth', it is a value missing from Poland. I personally prefer full understanding of reality, of 'truth', to an emotional pleasures of myth-making. To each his own, some like it hot, but they shouldn't complain when they get burnt occasionally.

    , @Mikhail
    True.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Mitleser says:
    @Beckow

    "nostalgia for pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I’d suppose that’s rather different from what “diversity” has come to mean in Western Europe"
     
    This is an under-appreciated dynamic that will drive the future of eastern Europe (and of EU). Most common attitude that is growing very fast is that Western meddlers destroyed a lot of really good stuff in the east and are actively trying to replace it with all the bad stuff in the West (like migrants, crime, insecurity...).

    A generation ago, easterners wanted what was good in the West, while preserving what they already had. There is a realisation now that West has tried to do the opposite. In spite of all the pretty speeches and slogans, West in effect 'broke its promises, and carried out its threats'. The reality of multi-cultural nonsense, migrants, colonial assembly economy, financial domination, and just pure ignorant arrogance by the West has hit a tipping point. The 2015 migrant trek and the incredible reaction by Western politicians has permanently changed the political landscape.

    I still run into Western morons who think that by more communication outreach (=propaganda), economic threats or even by force, they will be able to implement their open-borders/multicultural dream-land in the east. They don't understand that after 2015 there is a zero chance that the population there would ever go along with it. And the politicians - no matter how scared or corrupt - have to reflect this. But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down. This will backfire badly.

    But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down.

    European court opens hearing on recognizing same-sex unions

    BUCHAREST, Romania — The European Court of Justice on Tuesday opened a hearing on the recognition of same-sex marriages in European Union countries where they aren’t legal.

    The hearing in Luxembourg came after Romania’s constitutional court asked the European court to make a ruling on the issue amid a court case in Romania brought by a Romanian-American couple who want their 2010 union to be recognized. Same-sex marriage isn’t legally recognized in Romania, which is an EU member.

    Iustina Ionescu, a Romanian lawyer, told the court the couple’s marriage should be recognized based on the EU principle of free movement.

    “We have confidence in the wisdom of the European judges that they will have the capacity to take a decision in our favor which corrects the injustices in Romania,” said Adrian Coman, who has been fighting since 2012 to get his marriage to U.S. citizen Claibourn Robert Hamilton legally recognized in the same way it would be if they were a heterosexual couple.

    However, representatives from Romania, Hungary, Poland and Latvia told the court Tuesday they don’t want the term “spouse” to include same-sex unions.

    European Commission officials said same-sex marriages or civil partnerships are recognized or enjoy legal protection in 22 out of EU’s 28 members. Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia currently do not offer legal protection to same-sex couples.

    Opposition to same-sex relationships is often fierce in Romania, where homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2002.

    http://www.therepublic.com/2017/11/21/eu-europe-same-sex-marriage/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Yep, this is insanity: pushing out-of-control liberal dreams on others is the worst form of imperial over-reach. Next, the multi-gender nonsense, and compulsory open borders to all Third Worlders. It is as if the morons in Brussels were determined to undermine EU.

    (Could they be possibly working on destroying EU? Soros certainly looks like a guy with a 'complicated' past :) )

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating.
     
    Very interesting. I don't think Poles think about Slovaks much. Their opinion of Czechs is that Czechs are weak, and always bend to the strongest force. They didn't resist the Nazis at all basically, despite having a decent army, they were very subservient to the Soviets (much more so than were the Poles), and they went full materialist/liberal post 1990. They are described as feathers, blowing in the wind. (their behavior is rational given that they have always been a small nation, whereas Poles have not always been)

    “common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes”

    …when you are a small nation in a geographically exposed location, the above can be described as ‘weakness’. It applies to both Czechs and Slovaks and it has worked better than Polish ‘resistance’ and volatility, at least so far. Czechs and Slovaks are much richer, better governed, and have had a more quiet history with fewer tragedies.

    My point is about attitudes: Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so). They also burn bridges and gain no allies. One can admire it from distance, but it has never worked. It introduces a large element of mythology and what can only be described as ‘lying’. Czechs and Slovaks, on the other hand, pride themselves on ‘living in truth‘, it is a value missing from Poland. I personally prefer full understanding of reality, of ‘truth’, to an emotional pleasures of myth-making. To each his own, some like it hot, but they shouldn’t complain when they get burnt occasionally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Sure - the retort of Czechs to Poles who accused Czechs of cowardice and complicity to Nazis is - compare the fates of Prague and Warsaw during World War II.

    Another thing - Czech language is to Polish language as Ukrainian is to Russian.
    , @Hupa

    Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so)
     
    Yep. Poles have a curse in their head in the form of historical memory of the past history with many successes. Poles were able to shape a big eastern-european country and to create their own polish-speaking elites, and also to beat numerous enemies. So Poles have a distorted sense of proportions and the project the past, which fills them with certain emotions and symbols, onto contemporary circumstances. They also conveniently leave out serious and insightful considerations on their historical failures. Thus they have pretensions to become a country on par with western superpowers. Meanwhile Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians are used to being small nations that are weak, so to them their feeling of powerlessness and small potential is natural, which fills them with pragmatism, skepticism and pessimism. They just want to stay around with untouched wealth
    , @Mikhail
    Then again, the Czechs and Slovaks can't trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.

    For Poland, the tragedy wasn't often being as powerful as some others - meshed with its instances of relatively considerable power, which alienated some.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes"
     
    ...when you are a small nation in a geographically exposed location, the above can be described as 'weakness'. It applies to both Czechs and Slovaks and it has worked better than Polish 'resistance' and volatility, at least so far. Czechs and Slovaks are much richer, better governed, and have had a more quiet history with fewer tragedies.

    My point is about attitudes: Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so). They also burn bridges and gain no allies. One can admire it from distance, but it has never worked. It introduces a large element of mythology and what can only be described as 'lying'. Czechs and Slovaks, on the other hand, pride themselves on 'living in truth', it is a value missing from Poland. I personally prefer full understanding of reality, of 'truth', to an emotional pleasures of myth-making. To each his own, some like it hot, but they shouldn't complain when they get burnt occasionally.

    Sure – the retort of Czechs to Poles who accused Czechs of cowardice and complicity to Nazis is – compare the fates of Prague and Warsaw during World War II.

    Another thing – Czech language is to Polish language as Ukrainian is to Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    It is more than a 'retort', it is a way of understanding reality. You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis - there really was none. (There was quite a bit among Slovaks.)

    If you can describe how does 'cowardice' in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us. My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level. They should try it and they might have a better country with fewer unnecessary enemies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. melanf says:
    @Beckow
    Slovakia should have been included. It is a great micro-cosmos of eastern Europe and tends to predict future trends. Possibly because of its location and demographic, or a combination of common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes.

    Poles are an outlier. They overdo their emotional nationalism and Catholicism, but as the survey shows Poles are also surprisingly insecure. A really hard history will do that to people, up and down too many times. Slovaks or Czechs are nothing like the Poles. There has never been any affinity and most Slovaks think of Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating. (If you mark any food product in Slovak stores as 'Made in Poland' nobody buys it because people don't trust the quality. Same is true in Czech R.)

    Czech atheism is over-stated, most people are strong cultural Christians. For historical reasons Czechs don't like to identify with Catholics (look up what Habsburgs and Jesuits did to them), and Protestants are disorganised. But it is more of an image by Prague intellectuals than a genuine 'atheist' world-view. In general, if you want to understand the Czech society simply ignore the Prague talkers - they are among the more bizarre people in the universe, often amusing, coddled by life, and totally unrepresentative of the country.

    In any case, Slovak and Czech attitudes are in my view a much better predictor of future developments.

    most Slovaks think of Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating.

    Interestingly, in Russia’s opinion about the poles better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Hupa says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I think historical specifics explain Poland/Romania.

    Abortion was allowed during the Communist era. Nationalism heavily intertwined with Catholicism. Legal abortion goes by the wayside after Communism as something associated with the Communist regime.

    In Romania, abortions illegal - except for members of the Communist Party, to rub the humiliation in - because Ceausescu wants fast population growth to increase Romania's national power. Abortion legalized since conversely its criminalization was associated with the Communist regime.

    Possible, I would also attribute that to the fact that communism really squeezed the Church and really dechristianized parts of the country, it isn’t like catholicism was as vibrant and alive as during the Interwar period. For instance, the catholic weekly magazines, one of which is now the biggest weekly magazine in Poland with some 400 000 copies sold per week, were only allowed in 1980s, when communism was in its decline phase. I wonder how the abortion issue will develop in Romania though, because their Church will also be gaining some ground there possibly

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Hupa says:
    @Beckow

    "common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes"
     
    ...when you are a small nation in a geographically exposed location, the above can be described as 'weakness'. It applies to both Czechs and Slovaks and it has worked better than Polish 'resistance' and volatility, at least so far. Czechs and Slovaks are much richer, better governed, and have had a more quiet history with fewer tragedies.

    My point is about attitudes: Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so). They also burn bridges and gain no allies. One can admire it from distance, but it has never worked. It introduces a large element of mythology and what can only be described as 'lying'. Czechs and Slovaks, on the other hand, pride themselves on 'living in truth', it is a value missing from Poland. I personally prefer full understanding of reality, of 'truth', to an emotional pleasures of myth-making. To each his own, some like it hot, but they shouldn't complain when they get burnt occasionally.

    Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so)

    Yep. Poles have a curse in their head in the form of historical memory of the past history with many successes. Poles were able to shape a big eastern-european country and to create their own polish-speaking elites, and also to beat numerous enemies. So Poles have a distorted sense of proportions and the project the past, which fills them with certain emotions and symbols, onto contemporary circumstances. They also conveniently leave out serious and insightful considerations on their historical failures. Thus they have pretensions to become a country on par with western superpowers. Meanwhile Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians are used to being small nations that are weak, so to them their feeling of powerlessness and small potential is natural, which fills them with pragmatism, skepticism and pessimism. They just want to stay around with untouched wealth

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Wency
    Thanks for highlighting the survey, it's extremely interesting. I'm disappointed though that Slovakia was excluded for some unexplained reason. At 5 million people, it's larger than several of the countries on this list.

    My sense (never having visited) is that Slovaks are fairly close to the Poles on many of these issues, being much more religious than the Czechs. This itself is curious; why are the Czechs so much more secular than the Slovaks, with whom they have been linked for most of modern history? The Czechs tried to go Protestant but were crushed and forced to stay Catholic, which may be a recipe for weak religious enthusiasm afterwards (see also France, where the Protestants were defeated only with much bloodshed, and which secularized faster than most other Catholic countries).

    But then, a similar fate befell the Slovaks, who tried to go Lutheran. So I've never heard an explanation as to why they differ from the Czechs on this issue. Perhaps related: Slovak enthusiasm for fascism seems to have been stronger than among the Czechs, which is partly why Hitler split them off as a puppet state.

    Czechs and Slovaks were only united in 1918 as the Bohemians and Moravians (now Czechs) spent centuries under Austrian rule while the Slovaks spent close to a thousand years under Magyar rule. This no doubt created some of the subtle cultural/governance/ideological differences found between the two peoples despite their great similarities. No non-Slav can be faulted for thinking that the two are interchangeable because they are quite similar to one another.

    Slovenes and Northern Croatians resemble one another quite a bit as well, right down to their use of “kaj/kay” for the word ‘what’. Their cultures are very similar as are their temperaments, but there are cultural differences that reflect in governance for the simple reason that Slovenes spent a thousand years under the Franks/Germanics/Austrians while Northern Croatians spent eight centuries in a lopsided ‘personal union’ with the Magyars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Bohemians and Moravians (now Czechs) spent centuries under Austrian rule"
     
    Well, the Czechs always called themselves Czechs. 'Bohemia' was the name of the province and 'Bohemians' was the Latin term for Czechs. Moravians now mostly think of themselves as Czechs too.

    What is generally not understood is that Moravians and Western Slovaks are very close culturally, religiously and linguistically. Their languages used to be almost identical until the 19th century language standardisation that used Prague dialect as basis for Czech, and Central Slovak as basis for Slovak. That over time created a linguistic barrier and helped to separate Czechs and Slovaks.

    The core of Czechoslovakia as an idea came from the Moravian-Western Slovak thousand year old cultural affinity. They formed the Magna Moravia early medieval state in the 9th century whose center was literally on the border between Moravia and Slovakia. Prague has never had much in common with Slovakia, and the excessive centralism in Prague combined with excessive touchiness of some Slovaks eventually destroyed the Czecho-Slovak idea. Too bad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @melanf

    Yet, looking at the poll, the Russian population is remarkably sanguine about diversity.
     
    In Russia live (and always lived) in different ethnic groups. Here's an example of one of the indigenous people of Russia (I'll bet the participants in this discussion will not be able to guess this ethnic group, without searching the Internet)

    http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/1711/49/b97ee54616f1.jpg

    http://s010.radikal.ru/i314/1711/9b/d9228770b9a5.jpg

    Because of this, for Russia, the coexistence of different peoples is the norm. The attitude towards migrants from Central Asia is a totally different subject. For this it is necessary to ask not about "diversity", but about the attitude towards migrants.


    So far, I haven’t seen anything that would prove otherwise.
     
    A typical advertisement:
    Apartments for Rent, only for Russian/Slavic families
    http://s017.radikal.ru/i415/1304/96/179be3022e3d.jpg

    meaning - no migrants

    Mordavians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Mordavians.
     
    No, the typical Mordvinians are more round-faced and red-haired

    http://api.ning.com/files/1UL3ifpm7Ls7qot58FIN7yvVeuN0ojV0jKAYkLUnhzXgj6VZFKEk7brXIVfkASQyXmjxH09md5XsAE-X55Fw8*wVgX5rxzNl/file.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Beckow says:
    @Niccolo Salo
    Czechs and Slovaks were only united in 1918 as the Bohemians and Moravians (now Czechs) spent centuries under Austrian rule while the Slovaks spent close to a thousand years under Magyar rule. This no doubt created some of the subtle cultural/governance/ideological differences found between the two peoples despite their great similarities. No non-Slav can be faulted for thinking that the two are interchangeable because they are quite similar to one another.

    Slovenes and Northern Croatians resemble one another quite a bit as well, right down to their use of "kaj/kay" for the word 'what'. Their cultures are very similar as are their temperaments, but there are cultural differences that reflect in governance for the simple reason that Slovenes spent a thousand years under the Franks/Germanics/Austrians while Northern Croatians spent eight centuries in a lopsided 'personal union' with the Magyars.

    “Bohemians and Moravians (now Czechs) spent centuries under Austrian rule”

    Well, the Czechs always called themselves Czechs. ‘Bohemia’ was the name of the province and ‘Bohemians’ was the Latin term for Czechs. Moravians now mostly think of themselves as Czechs too.

    What is generally not understood is that Moravians and Western Slovaks are very close culturally, religiously and linguistically. Their languages used to be almost identical until the 19th century language standardisation that used Prague dialect as basis for Czech, and Central Slovak as basis for Slovak. That over time created a linguistic barrier and helped to separate Czechs and Slovaks.

    The core of Czechoslovakia as an idea came from the Moravian-Western Slovak thousand year old cultural affinity. They formed the Magna Moravia early medieval state in the 9th century whose center was literally on the border between Moravia and Slovakia. Prague has never had much in common with Slovakia, and the excessive centralism in Prague combined with excessive touchiness of some Slovaks eventually destroyed the Czecho-Slovak idea. Too bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Beckow says:
    @AP
    Sure - the retort of Czechs to Poles who accused Czechs of cowardice and complicity to Nazis is - compare the fates of Prague and Warsaw during World War II.

    Another thing - Czech language is to Polish language as Ukrainian is to Russian.

    It is more than a ‘retort’, it is a way of understanding reality. You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none. (There was quite a bit among Slovaks.)

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us. My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level. They should try it and they might have a better country with fewer unnecessary enemies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none.
     
    Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don't know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?

    Poles fought bitterly against the Germans and much of their country was destroyed in the process.

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us
     
    The two terms can be equally used to describe the same behavior.

    I am being neutral here. Czechs practiced self-preservation (or cowardice, or both). They surrendered without fighting . Poles proudly refused offers of an alliance from Germany in exchange for becoming vassals. They fought, and experienced extreme suffering.

    My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour
     
    Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level? I haven't seen this.
    , @Chet Bradley
    Hi Beckow, thanks for all your insightful comments. I especially liked "...be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level."

    As a Serb, I think this could easily apply to Serbs too. And I also wish that our history had been more like Czech/Slovak history and less like Polish history, i.e. banging your head against the wall really hard without paying attention to the consequences. Certainly with regards to our 20th century history.

    At least we're in our right minds in our attitudes towards Russia. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Beckow says:
    @Mitleser

    But EU has lost its sense of proportion, as with all badly thought-out plans, their solution to everything is to double-down.
     
    European court opens hearing on recognizing same-sex unions

    BUCHAREST, Romania — The European Court of Justice on Tuesday opened a hearing on the recognition of same-sex marriages in European Union countries where they aren’t legal.

    The hearing in Luxembourg came after Romania’s constitutional court asked the European court to make a ruling on the issue amid a court case in Romania brought by a Romanian-American couple who want their 2010 union to be recognized. Same-sex marriage isn’t legally recognized in Romania, which is an EU member.

    Iustina Ionescu, a Romanian lawyer, told the court the couple’s marriage should be recognized based on the EU principle of free movement.

    “We have confidence in the wisdom of the European judges that they will have the capacity to take a decision in our favor which corrects the injustices in Romania,” said Adrian Coman, who has been fighting since 2012 to get his marriage to U.S. citizen Claibourn Robert Hamilton legally recognized in the same way it would be if they were a heterosexual couple.

    However, representatives from Romania, Hungary, Poland and Latvia told the court Tuesday they don’t want the term “spouse” to include same-sex unions.

    European Commission officials said same-sex marriages or civil partnerships are recognized or enjoy legal protection in 22 out of EU’s 28 members. Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia currently do not offer legal protection to same-sex couples.

    Opposition to same-sex relationships is often fierce in Romania, where homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2002.
     
    http://www.therepublic.com/2017/11/21/eu-europe-same-sex-marriage/

    Yep, this is insanity: pushing out-of-control liberal dreams on others is the worst form of imperial over-reach. Next, the multi-gender nonsense, and compulsory open borders to all Third Worlders. It is as if the morons in Brussels were determined to undermine EU.

    (Could they be possibly working on destroying EU? Soros certainly looks like a guy with a ‘complicated’ past :) )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. melanf says:
    @Philip Owen
    Mordavians.

    Mordavians.

    No, the typical Mordvinians are more round-faced and red-haired

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Those are Udmurts. I was thinking of another group who live further South, Erzya. They were all over the middle Volga (Samara, Saratov) before the Muscovite settlers arrived 400 years ago. Most are assimilated. When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict "Ukrainian" villages.
    , @Philip Owen
    As a follow up, the map shows the distribution of Finns in Russia. I have come across them on the road between Saratov and Penza and South West Penza - going around villages looking for pig farm sites.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordvins#/media/File%3A%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%A3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5._%D0%9F%D0%BE_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC_%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_2010_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0..png

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. AP says:
    @Beckow
    It is more than a 'retort', it is a way of understanding reality. You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis - there really was none. (There was quite a bit among Slovaks.)

    If you can describe how does 'cowardice' in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us. My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level. They should try it and they might have a better country with fewer unnecessary enemies.

    You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none.

    Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don’t know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?

    Poles fought bitterly against the Germans and much of their country was destroyed in the process.

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us

    The two terms can be equally used to describe the same behavior.

    I am being neutral here. Czechs practiced self-preservation (or cowardice, or both). They surrendered without fighting . Poles proudly refused offers of an alliance from Germany in exchange for becoming vassals. They fought, and experienced extreme suffering.

    My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour

    Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level? I haven’t seen this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don’t know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?"
     
    Yes, Czechs were working...and so were the Poles, and French, Belgians.... Equipment? Not destroyed, Germans got it. Again same as all over Europe. That's not 'complicity', that's simply what happens when you are on the losing side. Complicity is an active assistance, collusion on goals, supporting the ideology. Czechs did none of that, so - in my view - they were not complicit.

    We can argue about value of 'heroic' resistance, with cities destroyed and millions dead. I would say most of the value is symbolic. And symbolism is by definition not real, it feeds myths, it creates a caricature of reality.

    "Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level?"
     
    This is an interesting one. I would say statistically more often than with some other nations. Maybe just my bad luck. But there is something in Polish mentality that lends itself to cheating and cutting corners (I have heard Poles use term 'chujowa rasa' about some of their compatriots). My theory is that most Poles buy into the grandiose lies about themselves as a nation, myths, half-truths, lots of animosity towards others. That has undermined the basic low level honesty in their lives, so they are more likely to cheat than other more sober, reality-based groups. One sees similar behaviour among many Third World nations - they often believe complete nonsense about their own history, religion, etc... it is too painful for them to deal with reality, so they lie to themselves. That leads to accepting lies as part of life and a certain light-hearted attitude to deception. Poles seem to suffer from something similar - painful history that is covered up with myths, and the mythologizing (lying) that leads to a lack of general honesty in day-to-day life.

    It is just a theory, but it fits what one sees with Poles today - an almost desperate manufacturing of heroic one-sided history, combined with trying to sell rotten meat as fresh. But I could be wrong...
    , @LondonBob
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YVAqwC5UU

    Czechs did what they could.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    : If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland's reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression. Of course, it would have been nice for them to tell Poland that they are only going to declare war on Germany and not actually attack it (indeed, Britain and France sat on the defensive as Poland got slaughtered).

    In addition to this, I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. While there very likely would have still been a severe bloodbath on the Eastern Front (with Nazi Germany + Slovakia + Poland + Hungary + Romania vs. the Soviet Union), a significant part of Poland's Jewish population might have actually survived the Holocaust in this TL. Indeed, the survival rates for Jews in Nazi-allied countries such as Romania, Hungary, and Finland were much higher than the survival rate for Polish Jewry in World War II in real life. Indeed, unfortunately life can be nasty and thus cause pride to have a cost. Indeed, Poland rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance and thus likely caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered; the same is also true of Lithuania when it rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance (to dismember Poland, of course) and thus caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered.

    Indeed, pride unfortunately sometimes has a significant cost in human lives. Thus, the best move would have been for France, Britain, and Poland to militarily overthrow Hitler and the Nazis early on in their rule--perhaps in 1933 or even in 1936. Of course, having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Beckow says:
    @AP

    You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none.
     
    Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don't know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?

    Poles fought bitterly against the Germans and much of their country was destroyed in the process.

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us
     
    The two terms can be equally used to describe the same behavior.

    I am being neutral here. Czechs practiced self-preservation (or cowardice, or both). They surrendered without fighting . Poles proudly refused offers of an alliance from Germany in exchange for becoming vassals. They fought, and experienced extreme suffering.

    My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour
     
    Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level? I haven't seen this.

    “Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don’t know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?”

    Yes, Czechs were working…and so were the Poles, and French, Belgians…. Equipment? Not destroyed, Germans got it. Again same as all over Europe. That’s not ‘complicity‘, that’s simply what happens when you are on the losing side. Complicity is an active assistance, collusion on goals, supporting the ideology. Czechs did none of that, so – in my view – they were not complicit.

    We can argue about value of ‘heroic’ resistance, with cities destroyed and millions dead. I would say most of the value is symbolic. And symbolism is by definition not real, it feeds myths, it creates a caricature of reality.

    “Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level?”

    This is an interesting one. I would say statistically more often than with some other nations. Maybe just my bad luck. But there is something in Polish mentality that lends itself to cheating and cutting corners (I have heard Poles use term ‘chujowa rasa‘ about some of their compatriots). My theory is that most Poles buy into the grandiose lies about themselves as a nation, myths, half-truths, lots of animosity towards others. That has undermined the basic low level honesty in their lives, so they are more likely to cheat than other more sober, reality-based groups. One sees similar behaviour among many Third World nations – they often believe complete nonsense about their own history, religion, etc… it is too painful for them to deal with reality, so they lie to themselves. That leads to accepting lies as part of life and a certain light-hearted attitude to deception. Poles seem to suffer from something similar – painful history that is covered up with myths, and the mythologizing (lying) that leads to a lack of general honesty in day-to-day life.

    It is just a theory, but it fits what one sees with Poles today – an almost desperate manufacturing of heroic one-sided history, combined with trying to sell rotten meat as fresh. But I could be wrong…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Yes, Czechs were working…and so were the Poles, and French, Belgians…. Equipment? Not destroyed, Germans got it. Again same as all over Europe. That’s not ‘complicity‘, that’s simply what happens when you are on the losing side.
     
    The difference was that Poles fought and a lot of stuff was wrecked in the process. The Czechs just gave it up peaceful and intact, and proceeded to work for the Germans as asked. Ultimately the result was intact Prague and devastated Warsaw. But Poles can be proud for having really resisted.

    Complicity is an active assistance, collusion on goals, supporting the ideology.
     
    Perhaps acquiescence would have been a better word than complicity. The guy who quietly informs on his neighbors and does what the secret police ask, but does not actually join them and doesn't even like them - versus the one who fights back. The guy who quietly pays the mafia what they ask and let them use his restaurant without actually joining them, vs. the one who refuses and goes to the police. In these cases the former would be the Czech approach, the latter the Polish approach. The "Pole" is more likely to end up in trouble. He is also likely to view the "Czech" with contempt. And the "Czech" may view the "Pole" as a fool who put himself in trouble for no reason.

    But there is something in Polish mentality that lends itself to cheating and cutting corners
     
    Interesting, I haven't noticed that. My impression is that they have a sense of honor about themselves that works against such behaviors.

    Generally speaking in Central and Eastern Europe, the ones to the East are seen as worse. Are Poles viewed as "Easterners" relative to Czechs and Slovaks (despite geographically being northerners)?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Well Beckow, you are up to your neck in bigotry of the laziest kind against Poles. To your credit, however, you are at least fully aware of it and the fact that you lack any real understanding of Poland and that your understanding of Poles can be favourably compared to that of a 6 year old. That said, I also have my fair share of criticism of my fellow compatriots.

    It’s the inverse: too many Poles are stuck in perpetual victimhood. Victimhood is comfortable, but unlike you, I don’t agree that Polish history is an endless series of defeats. The last 200 years have been bad, but even in the last 200 years, Poland has had a strong role in moments of importance. Take the 1920 battle with Soviet Russia, which pushed back Soviet conquest by decades(and if not for Hitler’s Germany, it’s reasonable to ask if it had ever happened).

    However, much more importantly, if you look at the last 1000, Poles have had a decisive influence on Eastern Europe, far more than any Czech or Slovak can even dream of in their wildest imaginations.

    But my criticism of Poles is that because of this, their victimhood mentality, they also refuse to acknowledge the wrongs that Poland has inflicted upon other nations(often to the East of what is historical Poland). After all, if you’re only a victim, you can never be an oppressor, right? It’s a childish world view which leads legitimate grievances against Polish behaviour to be beaten back reflexively by Polish nationalists who limit themselves to the perpetual victimhood narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "I don’t agree that Polish history is an endless series of defeats."
     
    I never said that, I said it has been 'up and down'. You are fighting a straw-man in your head again.

    Maybe my understanding of Poles is limited, although I think I know the country better than 99% of outsiders. Polish general unwillingness to see both sides to issues, the refusal to acknowledge Polish 'wrongs', the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans), and equally bizarre obsession with hating anything east of them - that is more than 'victimhood' mentality.

    Look, every nation has a complicated history, and what we did to each other often overlaps. To see Poles in 2017 on a mythology binge - 'we saved Europe again and again from the eastern savages', meaning the evil Russians' - while fully and proudly ignoring the Polish quasi-imperial behaviour in the east that lasted for hundreds of years, and also completely ignoring the role the likes of Hitler, or Napoleon, and other Western imperial attacks played...well, what can one say?

    Do you know any other European nation that engages in the same level of lying by omission about history? Most others are much more self-critical. Your selectivity and endless cherry-picking is actually kind of tiresome, people tune it out. Poles are being used, as they have been so many times in the past. Where do you think this is going? What do you think would happen to Poland - and most Poles - if there was another West-Russia war in Europe? Or do you think you will proudly march around Moscow or Koningsberg? Barking at nuclear weapons on behalf of distant 'friends' tends to backfire. This is an emotional failure that comes out of failure to acknowledge what really happened in Polish history, good and bad.

    You are right about one thing, we Czechs and Slovaks have no ambition to 'make history'. But we make really good beer and dumplings...probably because we are lazy 6-year olds in heart. Enjoy your heroism, wars and slogans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @DCMG
    AP on a simplistic level there's a big difference in how Americans describe their ethnicity and how Russians do. Americans may say they are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish- Americans, Mexican-Americans, act. On the other hand with Russians it's always Russian first Orthodox, or Moslem or Buddhist, they are Russians first.

    This gets the traditional American assimilationist view exactly backwards.

    The identity listed first is a modifier, e.g. Italian or German or Polish or French etc.

    The thing listed “second”, American, is the primary and unifying identity & allegiance.

    By contrast, Jews typically see”Russian Jew”or “german Jew”or “American Jew”, meaning that Jewishness is what matters most and there are merely various types of Jew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. LondonBob says:
    @AP

    You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none.
     
    Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don't know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?

    Poles fought bitterly against the Germans and much of their country was destroyed in the process.

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us
     
    The two terms can be equally used to describe the same behavior.

    I am being neutral here. Czechs practiced self-preservation (or cowardice, or both). They surrendered without fighting . Poles proudly refused offers of an alliance from Germany in exchange for becoming vassals. They fought, and experienced extreme suffering.

    My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour
     
    Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level? I haven't seen this.

    Czechs did what they could.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Czechs did what they could"
     
    One was Czech and one was Slovak. They tried - Heydrich was the highest ranking Nazi killed by resistance during WWII.

    On the other hand, the firefighters who pumped the water into the church killing the resistance fighters were also Czech. Very Czech. It was just a 'job', Germans said: drown them, so they did.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @melanf

    Mordavians.
     
    No, the typical Mordvinians are more round-faced and red-haired

    http://api.ning.com/files/1UL3ifpm7Ls7qot58FIN7yvVeuN0ojV0jKAYkLUnhzXgj6VZFKEk7brXIVfkASQyXmjxH09md5XsAE-X55Fw8*wVgX5rxzNl/file.jpg

    Those are Udmurts. I was thinking of another group who live further South, Erzya. They were all over the middle Volga (Samara, Saratov) before the Muscovite settlers arrived 400 years ago. Most are assimilated. When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict “Ukrainian” villages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Those are Udmurts.
     
    In the picture in the message 41 - Mordva (Erzya). Udmurt even more redheads (claim to be the most red haired people on earth).

    At the pictures in post 19 - other people: not Mordvinians and not Udmurts . Anthropological evidence indicates that the people (from post 19) - pretty close copy of the Norwegians.
    http://s016.radikal.ru/i337/1711/1b/d1f5d64ee7ad.jpg
    But it is not Germanic-speaking people, and not even Indo-Europeans


    When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict “Ukrainian” villages.
     
    Ukrainians are very blond??? I highly doubt
    http://p.im9.eu/mapporn-blonde-hair-across-the-world-4972x2517.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Beckow says:
    @LondonBob
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YVAqwC5UU

    Czechs did what they could.

    “Czechs did what they could”

    One was Czech and one was Slovak. They tried – Heydrich was the highest ranking Nazi killed by resistance during WWII.

    On the other hand, the firefighters who pumped the water into the church killing the resistance fighters were also Czech. Very Czech. It was just a ‘job’, Germans said: drown them, so they did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @melanf

    Mordavians.
     
    No, the typical Mordvinians are more round-faced and red-haired

    http://api.ning.com/files/1UL3ifpm7Ls7qot58FIN7yvVeuN0ojV0jKAYkLUnhzXgj6VZFKEk7brXIVfkASQyXmjxH09md5XsAE-X55Fw8*wVgX5rxzNl/file.jpg

    As a follow up, the map shows the distribution of Finns in Russia. I have come across them on the road between Saratov and Penza and South West Penza – going around villages looking for pig farm sites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Beckow says:
    @Polish Perspective
    Well Beckow, you are up to your neck in bigotry of the laziest kind against Poles. To your credit, however, you are at least fully aware of it and the fact that you lack any real understanding of Poland and that your understanding of Poles can be favourably compared to that of a 6 year old. That said, I also have my fair share of criticism of my fellow compatriots.

    It's the inverse: too many Poles are stuck in perpetual victimhood. Victimhood is comfortable, but unlike you, I don't agree that Polish history is an endless series of defeats. The last 200 years have been bad, but even in the last 200 years, Poland has had a strong role in moments of importance. Take the 1920 battle with Soviet Russia, which pushed back Soviet conquest by decades(and if not for Hitler's Germany, it's reasonable to ask if it had ever happened).

    However, much more importantly, if you look at the last 1000, Poles have had a decisive influence on Eastern Europe, far more than any Czech or Slovak can even dream of in their wildest imaginations.



    But my criticism of Poles is that because of this, their victimhood mentality, they also refuse to acknowledge the wrongs that Poland has inflicted upon other nations(often to the East of what is historical Poland). After all, if you're only a victim, you can never be an oppressor, right? It's a childish world view which leads legitimate grievances against Polish behaviour to be beaten back reflexively by Polish nationalists who limit themselves to the perpetual victimhood narrative.

    “I don’t agree that Polish history is an endless series of defeats.”

    I never said that, I said it has been ‘up and down‘. You are fighting a straw-man in your head again.

    Maybe my understanding of Poles is limited, although I think I know the country better than 99% of outsiders. Polish general unwillingness to see both sides to issues, the refusal to acknowledge Polish ‘wrongs’, the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans), and equally bizarre obsession with hating anything east of them – that is more than ‘victimhood’ mentality.

    Look, every nation has a complicated history, and what we did to each other often overlaps. To see Poles in 2017 on a mythology binge – ‘we saved Europe again and again from the eastern savages‘, meaning the evil Russians’ – while fully and proudly ignoring the Polish quasi-imperial behaviour in the east that lasted for hundreds of years, and also completely ignoring the role the likes of Hitler, or Napoleon, and other Western imperial attacks played…well, what can one say?

    Do you know any other European nation that engages in the same level of lying by omission about history? Most others are much more self-critical. Your selectivity and endless cherry-picking is actually kind of tiresome, people tune it out. Poles are being used, as they have been so many times in the past. Where do you think this is going? What do you think would happen to Poland – and most Poles – if there was another West-Russia war in Europe? Or do you think you will proudly march around Moscow or Koningsberg? Barking at nuclear weapons on behalf of distant ‘friends’ tends to backfire. This is an emotional failure that comes out of failure to acknowledge what really happened in Polish history, good and bad.

    You are right about one thing, we Czechs and Slovaks have no ambition to ‘make history’. But we make really good beer and dumplings…probably because we are lazy 6-year olds in heart. Enjoy your heroism, wars and slogans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans)
     
    Does such servility really exist? The current Polish government has even brought up the issue of WW2 reparations again after all, that doesn't strike me exactly as servile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. melanf says:
    @Philip Owen
    Those are Udmurts. I was thinking of another group who live further South, Erzya. They were all over the middle Volga (Samara, Saratov) before the Muscovite settlers arrived 400 years ago. Most are assimilated. When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict "Ukrainian" villages.

    Those are Udmurts.

    In the picture in the message 41 – Mordva (Erzya). Udmurt even more redheads (claim to be the most red haired people on earth).

    At the pictures in post 19 – other people: not Mordvinians and not Udmurts . Anthropological evidence indicates that the people (from post 19) – pretty close copy of the Norwegians. But it is not Germanic-speaking people, and not even Indo-Europeans

    When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict “Ukrainian” villages.

    Ukrainians are very blond??? I highly doubt

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Pretty cool map - maybe that’s why blonde or red colored hair is so sought after. From a market perspective it is rare and rarity of something often determines its value.

    Peace.
    , @Philip Owen
    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Beckow

    "I don’t agree that Polish history is an endless series of defeats."
     
    I never said that, I said it has been 'up and down'. You are fighting a straw-man in your head again.

    Maybe my understanding of Poles is limited, although I think I know the country better than 99% of outsiders. Polish general unwillingness to see both sides to issues, the refusal to acknowledge Polish 'wrongs', the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans), and equally bizarre obsession with hating anything east of them - that is more than 'victimhood' mentality.

    Look, every nation has a complicated history, and what we did to each other often overlaps. To see Poles in 2017 on a mythology binge - 'we saved Europe again and again from the eastern savages', meaning the evil Russians' - while fully and proudly ignoring the Polish quasi-imperial behaviour in the east that lasted for hundreds of years, and also completely ignoring the role the likes of Hitler, or Napoleon, and other Western imperial attacks played...well, what can one say?

    Do you know any other European nation that engages in the same level of lying by omission about history? Most others are much more self-critical. Your selectivity and endless cherry-picking is actually kind of tiresome, people tune it out. Poles are being used, as they have been so many times in the past. Where do you think this is going? What do you think would happen to Poland - and most Poles - if there was another West-Russia war in Europe? Or do you think you will proudly march around Moscow or Koningsberg? Barking at nuclear weapons on behalf of distant 'friends' tends to backfire. This is an emotional failure that comes out of failure to acknowledge what really happened in Polish history, good and bad.

    You are right about one thing, we Czechs and Slovaks have no ambition to 'make history'. But we make really good beer and dumplings...probably because we are lazy 6-year olds in heart. Enjoy your heroism, wars and slogans.

    the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans)

    Does such servility really exist? The current Polish government has even brought up the issue of WW2 reparations again after all, that doesn’t strike me exactly as servile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Does such servility really exist?"
     
    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany. The culture goes out of its way to portray WWII as de facto 'Russian invasion'. There are no anti-German movies, but Russia is demonised daily. The previous government - Donald Tusk people - was for all practical purposes a vassal of Germany, Tusk was rewarded with a Brussels job.

    Today they are making a symbolic 'reparation' noise. But they don't mean it, it is a negotiating tactic. The real 'enemy' is to the east.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Beckow says:
    @German_reader

    the bizarre servility towards their actual mass murderers (=Germans)
     
    Does such servility really exist? The current Polish government has even brought up the issue of WW2 reparations again after all, that doesn't strike me exactly as servile.

    “Does such servility really exist?”

    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany. The culture goes out of its way to portray WWII as de facto ‘Russian invasion’. There are no anti-German movies, but Russia is demonised daily. The previous government – Donald Tusk people – was for all practical purposes a vassal of Germany, Tusk was rewarded with a Brussels job.

    Today they are making a symbolic ‘reparation’ noise. But they don’t mean it, it is a negotiating tactic. The real ‘enemy’ is to the east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany.
     
    The Warsaw intelligentsia is hardly representative of Poland though. I can't discern such servility, there have been persistent tensions between Poland and Germany over WW2 issues ever since the fall of communism, e.g. it's a common theme that Germans don't acknowledge German crimes against Poles enough (probably true to some extent, it was telling when German president Herzog back in the 1990s confused the Warsaw ghetto rising of 1943 with the Home army uprising of 1944 - apparently he hadn't heard of the latter), diplomatic protests by Poland against German media productions (e.g. a stupid German tv series a few years ago which depicted Polish resistance fighters as antisemites), severe conflicts about the activities of German expellee organizations (one of whose leaders Erika Steinbach seems to be something of a hate figure in Poland) etc.
    I mean, just look how Merkel is presented as a Nazi in some Polish media (pretty bizarre imo given what Merkel stands for):
    https://www.google.de/search?q=merkel+nazi+polen&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUoPb-3tXXAhUSbVAKHYj0BugQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=791

    I guess it's true though that Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.

    , @polskijoe
    there is a an unfortunate
    attitude
    about some Poles,
    where Germans are cool now,
    and everything is blamed on Russians.

    Working with Germany is okay for them,
    Working with Russia is bad.

    Yet the facts are Nazi Germany killed and did more damage than the Soviets.
    (I am not a commie and know the crimes of Soviets).

    I havent seen Russia or Germany do anything evil to Poland recently.

    Both main governments are quite antiRussian.
    The last government was pro German (almost like slaves or willing?) and the current thinks America will solve many problems from the big bad neighbours lol. It is 19/20th century mentality.

    Now the people are mixed on many views. In fact many Poles want to improve relations with both Germany and Russia. (dropping sanctions, talking, etc).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Beckow

    "Does such servility really exist?"
     
    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany. The culture goes out of its way to portray WWII as de facto 'Russian invasion'. There are no anti-German movies, but Russia is demonised daily. The previous government - Donald Tusk people - was for all practical purposes a vassal of Germany, Tusk was rewarded with a Brussels job.

    Today they are making a symbolic 'reparation' noise. But they don't mean it, it is a negotiating tactic. The real 'enemy' is to the east.

    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany.

    The Warsaw intelligentsia is hardly representative of Poland though. I can’t discern such servility, there have been persistent tensions between Poland and Germany over WW2 issues ever since the fall of communism, e.g. it’s a common theme that Germans don’t acknowledge German crimes against Poles enough (probably true to some extent, it was telling when German president Herzog back in the 1990s confused the Warsaw ghetto rising of 1943 with the Home army uprising of 1944 – apparently he hadn’t heard of the latter), diplomatic protests by Poland against German media productions (e.g. a stupid German tv series a few years ago which depicted Polish resistance fighters as antisemites), severe conflicts about the activities of German expellee organizations (one of whose leaders Erika Steinbach seems to be something of a hate figure in Poland) etc.
    I mean, just look how Merkel is presented as a Nazi in some Polish media (pretty bizarre imo given what Merkel stands for):

    https://www.google.de/search?q=merkel+nazi+polen&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUoPb-3tXXAhUSbVAKHYj0BugQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=791

    I guess it’s true though that Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Thanks, I have actually not seen some of that info. My exposure is mostly to the Warsaw intellectual type and they seem to love (or fear?) Germany.

    I probably overstated the 'servility' comment above :).


    Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.
     
    That is what I was trying to say. I think the threats to Poland are:

    1. Migrant invasion via Brussels directive - start with 50k, and on to eventually destroy Poland as it is today.
    2. Secondary migrant migration from western EU: there are 50-60 million Third Worlders happily settled in Western Europe and they have a full right to move to Poland. They might start doing so and in the process create enclaves welcoming to new migrants.
    3. Some sort of a dust-up with Ukrainians over Lviv and western Ukraine.
    4. Getting evaporated as collateral damage for 'confronting Russia' on behalf of West (noble, but rather painful).

    I think 2), followed by 1) is the most real threat. I think both 3) and 4) are highly unlikely. For some strange reason most 'educated' Poles worry about 4) around the clock, but they seem to think that they will be the ones doing the evaporating.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Talha says:
    @melanf

    Those are Udmurts.
     
    In the picture in the message 41 - Mordva (Erzya). Udmurt even more redheads (claim to be the most red haired people on earth).

    At the pictures in post 19 - other people: not Mordvinians and not Udmurts . Anthropological evidence indicates that the people (from post 19) - pretty close copy of the Norwegians.
    http://s016.radikal.ru/i337/1711/1b/d1f5d64ee7ad.jpg
    But it is not Germanic-speaking people, and not even Indo-Europeans


    When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict “Ukrainian” villages.
     
    Ukrainians are very blond??? I highly doubt
    http://p.im9.eu/mapporn-blonde-hair-across-the-world-4972x2517.jpg

    Pretty cool map – maybe that’s why blonde or red colored hair is so sought after. From a market perspective it is rare and rarity of something often determines its value.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Beckow says:
    @German_reader

    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany.
     
    The Warsaw intelligentsia is hardly representative of Poland though. I can't discern such servility, there have been persistent tensions between Poland and Germany over WW2 issues ever since the fall of communism, e.g. it's a common theme that Germans don't acknowledge German crimes against Poles enough (probably true to some extent, it was telling when German president Herzog back in the 1990s confused the Warsaw ghetto rising of 1943 with the Home army uprising of 1944 - apparently he hadn't heard of the latter), diplomatic protests by Poland against German media productions (e.g. a stupid German tv series a few years ago which depicted Polish resistance fighters as antisemites), severe conflicts about the activities of German expellee organizations (one of whose leaders Erika Steinbach seems to be something of a hate figure in Poland) etc.
    I mean, just look how Merkel is presented as a Nazi in some Polish media (pretty bizarre imo given what Merkel stands for):
    https://www.google.de/search?q=merkel+nazi+polen&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUoPb-3tXXAhUSbVAKHYj0BugQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=791

    I guess it's true though that Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.

    Thanks, I have actually not seen some of that info. My exposure is mostly to the Warsaw intellectual type and they seem to love (or fear?) Germany.

    I probably overstated the ‘servility’ comment above :).

    Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.

    That is what I was trying to say. I think the threats to Poland are:

    1. Migrant invasion via Brussels directive – start with 50k, and on to eventually destroy Poland as it is today.
    2. Secondary migrant migration from western EU: there are 50-60 million Third Worlders happily settled in Western Europe and they have a full right to move to Poland. They might start doing so and in the process create enclaves welcoming to new migrants.
    3. Some sort of a dust-up with Ukrainians over Lviv and western Ukraine.
    4. Getting evaporated as collateral damage for ‘confronting Russia’ on behalf of West (noble, but rather painful).

    I think 2), followed by 1) is the most real threat. I think both 3) and 4) are highly unlikely. For some strange reason most ‘educated’ Poles worry about 4) around the clock, but they seem to think that they will be the ones doing the evaporating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Sure, I agree with you about where the real dangers lie today, and there certainly is something rather anachronistic and quite hysterical about focusing on present-day Russia as threat number One. On the other hand I don't think it's hard to see where Polish apprehension comes from given the nature of Polish-Russian relations ca. 1770-1990. It's probably not smart to be a captive to history like that, but that's how a lot of people are, not just in Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Beckow
    Thanks, I have actually not seen some of that info. My exposure is mostly to the Warsaw intellectual type and they seem to love (or fear?) Germany.

    I probably overstated the 'servility' comment above :).


    Russia is perceived more as a potential threat in Poland today.
     
    That is what I was trying to say. I think the threats to Poland are:

    1. Migrant invasion via Brussels directive - start with 50k, and on to eventually destroy Poland as it is today.
    2. Secondary migrant migration from western EU: there are 50-60 million Third Worlders happily settled in Western Europe and they have a full right to move to Poland. They might start doing so and in the process create enclaves welcoming to new migrants.
    3. Some sort of a dust-up with Ukrainians over Lviv and western Ukraine.
    4. Getting evaporated as collateral damage for 'confronting Russia' on behalf of West (noble, but rather painful).

    I think 2), followed by 1) is the most real threat. I think both 3) and 4) are highly unlikely. For some strange reason most 'educated' Poles worry about 4) around the clock, but they seem to think that they will be the ones doing the evaporating.

    Sure, I agree with you about where the real dangers lie today, and there certainly is something rather anachronistic and quite hysterical about focusing on present-day Russia as threat number One. On the other hand I don’t think it’s hard to see where Polish apprehension comes from given the nature of Polish-Russian relations ca. 1770-1990. It’s probably not smart to be a captive to history like that, but that’s how a lot of people are, not just in Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Beckow
    It is more than a 'retort', it is a way of understanding reality. You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis - there really was none. (There was quite a bit among Slovaks.)

    If you can describe how does 'cowardice' in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us. My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level. They should try it and they might have a better country with fewer unnecessary enemies.

    Hi Beckow, thanks for all your insightful comments. I especially liked “…be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level.”

    As a Serb, I think this could easily apply to Serbs too. And I also wish that our history had been more like Czech/Slovak history and less like Polish history, i.e. banging your head against the wall really hard without paying attention to the consequences. Certainly with regards to our 20th century history.

    At least we’re in our right minds in our attitudes towards Russia. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "banging your head against the wall really hard without paying attention to the consequences"
     
    That's the image, the wall always wins. Thanks for the kind words...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Hi Anatoly,

    Is this PEW poll broken down by age cohort? It would be interesting to see the attitudes of various generations to the questions in the poll, especially to “% who say ___ is morally wrong” question. Seeing how attitudes towards e.g. abortion, premartial sex, and contraceptives change across generations would tell you if people are becoming more or less religious over time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Mr. XYZ says:
    @AP

    You can accuse Czechs of cowardice, but not complicity with the Nazis – there really was none.
     
    Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don't know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?

    Poles fought bitterly against the Germans and much of their country was destroyed in the process.

    If you can describe how does ‘cowardice’ in WWII circumstances differ from self-preservation, or simple fear, tell us
     
    The two terms can be equally used to describe the same behavior.

    I am being neutral here. Czechs practiced self-preservation (or cowardice, or both). They surrendered without fighting . Poles proudly refused offers of an alliance from Germany in exchange for becoming vassals. They fought, and experienced extreme suffering.

    My suggestion to our Polish friends would be to be more honourable in their personal behaviour
     
    Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level? I haven't seen this.

    : If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland’s reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression. Of course, it would have been nice for them to tell Poland that they are only going to declare war on Germany and not actually attack it (indeed, Britain and France sat on the defensive as Poland got slaughtered).

    In addition to this, I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance. While there very likely would have still been a severe bloodbath on the Eastern Front (with Nazi Germany + Slovakia + Poland + Hungary + Romania vs. the Soviet Union), a significant part of Poland’s Jewish population might have actually survived the Holocaust in this TL. Indeed, the survival rates for Jews in Nazi-allied countries such as Romania, Hungary, and Finland were much higher than the survival rate for Polish Jewry in World War II in real life. Indeed, unfortunately life can be nasty and thus cause pride to have a cost. Indeed, Poland rejected Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance and thus likely caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered; the same is also true of Lithuania when it rejected Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance (to dismember Poland, of course) and thus caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered.

    Indeed, pride unfortunately sometimes has a significant cost in human lives. Thus, the best move would have been for France, Britain, and Poland to militarily overthrow Hitler and the Nazis early on in their rule–perhaps in 1933 or even in 1936. Of course, having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out
     
    When Britain and France sold them out, the Czechs meekly surrendered their territory without firing a shot. IIRC Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn't want to fight together with Poland in such a case. So Poland helped itself to Polish-inhabited territories. Czechs did nothing there, also.

    I can't blame the Czechs for surrendering - it's a small nation, and had no chance of winning. Combined with Poland, in 1938, it still would have lost, but would have been an interesting fight.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland’s reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression.
     
    Poles were behaving proudly before the Germans regardless of the western allies. They obviously overestimated their own capabilities (or underestimated the Germans). Poland didn't do much worse than did France, a supposed Great Power, however.
    , @Beckow

    "having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this"
     
    Are you writing scripts for Hollywood? You do realise that German Nazism was about more than just 'Hitler'?

    No amount of 'alliance' with Nazi Poland could change the fact that Poland was the designated 'lebensraum'. It was the main German objective, the prize for the war. So offering alliance was rather pointless. I guess Poles could had offered to voluntary move to east of Ural, or to simply liquidate themselves, but even then Germany preferred to take it by force. It was more picturesque that way.
    , @anonymous coward

    I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance.
     
    The USSR actually did accept Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. Things didn't turn out better, they turned out worse. I doubt it would have been different for Poland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. polskijoe says:
    @Hupa
    Some of those are questionable, like the issue of abortion. Fewer Poles consider abortion as morally wrong, even though in polish surveys huge majority of people oppose abortion on demand and if anything, are in favour in abortion available in those special circumstances.

    Meanwhile in Romania, where abortion is on demand, more people see it as morally wrong. As for gay marriage - I seriously doubt as many as 32% of Poles support it. Unless there are ongoing changes in attitudes in Eastern Europe and I'm not aware of it, we'll see.

    And btw. how funny when people see Eastern Europe as alternative to "Western degeneracy", while the attitude towards pre-marital sex and contraception are the same. Also what the hell does it mean that "a woman has a responsibility to society to bear children"? It's their natural function, so in what way can be this seen as a responsibility towards society?

    Unfortunately the younger generation in Poland
    is a little more “liberal” in regards to those issues.

    I have looked at many polls in English and Polish
    on how they see things. There is a slow shift on many matters (some good, some bad).

    Many countries who join the Western alliance, become
    more materialist and more liberal quickly or slowly over time.

    That is my main objection the “friendship” with usa, or some other western countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    : If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland's reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression. Of course, it would have been nice for them to tell Poland that they are only going to declare war on Germany and not actually attack it (indeed, Britain and France sat on the defensive as Poland got slaughtered).

    In addition to this, I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. While there very likely would have still been a severe bloodbath on the Eastern Front (with Nazi Germany + Slovakia + Poland + Hungary + Romania vs. the Soviet Union), a significant part of Poland's Jewish population might have actually survived the Holocaust in this TL. Indeed, the survival rates for Jews in Nazi-allied countries such as Romania, Hungary, and Finland were much higher than the survival rate for Polish Jewry in World War II in real life. Indeed, unfortunately life can be nasty and thus cause pride to have a cost. Indeed, Poland rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance and thus likely caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered; the same is also true of Lithuania when it rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance (to dismember Poland, of course) and thus caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered.

    Indeed, pride unfortunately sometimes has a significant cost in human lives. Thus, the best move would have been for France, Britain, and Poland to militarily overthrow Hitler and the Nazis early on in their rule--perhaps in 1933 or even in 1936. Of course, having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this.

    If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out

    When Britain and France sold them out, the Czechs meekly surrendered their territory without firing a shot. IIRC Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn’t want to fight together with Poland in such a case. So Poland helped itself to Polish-inhabited territories. Czechs did nothing there, also.

    I can’t blame the Czechs for surrendering – it’s a small nation, and had no chance of winning. Combined with Poland, in 1938, it still would have lost, but would have been an interesting fight.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland’s reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression.

    Poles were behaving proudly before the Germans regardless of the western allies. They obviously overestimated their own capabilities (or underestimated the Germans). Poland didn’t do much worse than did France, a supposed Great Power, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn’t want to fight"
     
    What? I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border). So it went nowhere and might had been an empty promise.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war. But they remembered the Munich betrayal.

    Poles paid a terrible price for their betrayal a year later. I guess that's why you invent non-existent 'offer of help'. Trying to deny reality leads to some strange verbal convulsions. Poland at that time acted as a de facto Hitler's ally, and so did France and UK. Is that too painful to acknowledge?

    , @LondonBob
    Poles thought they would be in Berlin within a week, they actually sought war with Germany.

    After Anschluss Czechoslovakia was defenceless with Austria providing an easy invasion route hence Benes reluctance to fight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. polskijoe says:
    @Beckow

    "Does such servility really exist?"
     
    Yes, especially among the Warsaw intelligentsia there is an unhealthy desire to not recall WWII and to not antagonise Germany. The culture goes out of its way to portray WWII as de facto 'Russian invasion'. There are no anti-German movies, but Russia is demonised daily. The previous government - Donald Tusk people - was for all practical purposes a vassal of Germany, Tusk was rewarded with a Brussels job.

    Today they are making a symbolic 'reparation' noise. But they don't mean it, it is a negotiating tactic. The real 'enemy' is to the east.

    there is a an unfortunate
    attitude
    about some Poles,
    where Germans are cool now,
    and everything is blamed on Russians.

    Working with Germany is okay for them,
    Working with Russia is bad.

    Yet the facts are Nazi Germany killed and did more damage than the Soviets.
    (I am not a commie and know the crimes of Soviets).

    I havent seen Russia or Germany do anything evil to Poland recently.

    Both main governments are quite antiRussian.
    The last government was pro German (almost like slaves or willing?) and the current thinks America will solve many problems from the big bad neighbours lol. It is 19/20th century mentality.

    Now the people are mixed on many views. In fact many Poles want to improve relations with both Germany and Russia. (dropping sanctions, talking, etc).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "Czech industries were important for the Nazi war effort. These were left intact by the Czechs. Were Czechs working in them? (I don’t know) What happened to the equipment from the Czech military. Was it destroyed, or handed over and used?"
     
    Yes, Czechs were working...and so were the Poles, and French, Belgians.... Equipment? Not destroyed, Germans got it. Again same as all over Europe. That's not 'complicity', that's simply what happens when you are on the losing side. Complicity is an active assistance, collusion on goals, supporting the ideology. Czechs did none of that, so - in my view - they were not complicit.

    We can argue about value of 'heroic' resistance, with cities destroyed and millions dead. I would say most of the value is symbolic. And symbolism is by definition not real, it feeds myths, it creates a caricature of reality.

    "Have you found Poles to be dishonorable on a personal level?"
     
    This is an interesting one. I would say statistically more often than with some other nations. Maybe just my bad luck. But there is something in Polish mentality that lends itself to cheating and cutting corners (I have heard Poles use term 'chujowa rasa' about some of their compatriots). My theory is that most Poles buy into the grandiose lies about themselves as a nation, myths, half-truths, lots of animosity towards others. That has undermined the basic low level honesty in their lives, so they are more likely to cheat than other more sober, reality-based groups. One sees similar behaviour among many Third World nations - they often believe complete nonsense about their own history, religion, etc... it is too painful for them to deal with reality, so they lie to themselves. That leads to accepting lies as part of life and a certain light-hearted attitude to deception. Poles seem to suffer from something similar - painful history that is covered up with myths, and the mythologizing (lying) that leads to a lack of general honesty in day-to-day life.

    It is just a theory, but it fits what one sees with Poles today - an almost desperate manufacturing of heroic one-sided history, combined with trying to sell rotten meat as fresh. But I could be wrong...

    Yes, Czechs were working…and so were the Poles, and French, Belgians…. Equipment? Not destroyed, Germans got it. Again same as all over Europe. That’s not ‘complicity‘, that’s simply what happens when you are on the losing side.

    The difference was that Poles fought and a lot of stuff was wrecked in the process. The Czechs just gave it up peaceful and intact, and proceeded to work for the Germans as asked. Ultimately the result was intact Prague and devastated Warsaw. But Poles can be proud for having really resisted.

    Complicity is an active assistance, collusion on goals, supporting the ideology.

    Perhaps acquiescence would have been a better word than complicity. The guy who quietly informs on his neighbors and does what the secret police ask, but does not actually join them and doesn’t even like them – versus the one who fights back. The guy who quietly pays the mafia what they ask and let them use his restaurant without actually joining them, vs. the one who refuses and goes to the police. In these cases the former would be the Czech approach, the latter the Polish approach. The “Pole” is more likely to end up in trouble. He is also likely to view the “Czech” with contempt. And the “Czech” may view the “Pole” as a fool who put himself in trouble for no reason.

    But there is something in Polish mentality that lends itself to cheating and cutting corners

    Interesting, I haven’t noticed that. My impression is that they have a sense of honor about themselves that works against such behaviors.

    Generally speaking in Central and Eastern Europe, the ones to the East are seen as worse. Are Poles viewed as “Easterners” relative to Czechs and Slovaks (despite geographically being northerners)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Beckow says:
    @AP

    If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out
     
    When Britain and France sold them out, the Czechs meekly surrendered their territory without firing a shot. IIRC Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn't want to fight together with Poland in such a case. So Poland helped itself to Polish-inhabited territories. Czechs did nothing there, also.

    I can't blame the Czechs for surrendering - it's a small nation, and had no chance of winning. Combined with Poland, in 1938, it still would have lost, but would have been an interesting fight.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland’s reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression.
     
    Poles were behaving proudly before the Germans regardless of the western allies. They obviously overestimated their own capabilities (or underestimated the Germans). Poland didn't do much worse than did France, a supposed Great Power, however.

    “Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn’t want to fight”

    What? I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border). So it went nowhere and might had been an empty promise.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war. But they remembered the Munich betrayal.

    Poles paid a terrible price for their betrayal a year later. I guess that’s why you invent non-existent ‘offer of help’. Trying to deny reality leads to some strange verbal convulsions. Poland at that time acted as a de facto Hitler’s ally, and so did France and UK. Is that too painful to acknowledge?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.
     
    I had heard that prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories. Unlike the Western countries, Poland would have backed up its alliance. Czechoslovakia refused.

    Re: Much - If Czechoslovakia was going to give up its territory anyways, Poland might as well preserve its own co-ethnics.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border).
     
    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war.
     
    Czechs were well-fortified and well-armed, and IIRC had a good air force. They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn't fire a shot.

    And that's the difference between Czechs, and Poles, or Russians. My wife's Russian grandfather was at Brest fortress when the war started. They were surrounded, but all of the Russians there fought to the death. Even after it was clear that Poland would fall, Poles continued fighting, as here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    The Polish forces on the Hel peninsula held out until October:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hel

    The combined French sand British forces outlasted the Poles by only a week and half, once the Germans invaded France.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Beckow says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    : If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland's reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression. Of course, it would have been nice for them to tell Poland that they are only going to declare war on Germany and not actually attack it (indeed, Britain and France sat on the defensive as Poland got slaughtered).

    In addition to this, I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. While there very likely would have still been a severe bloodbath on the Eastern Front (with Nazi Germany + Slovakia + Poland + Hungary + Romania vs. the Soviet Union), a significant part of Poland's Jewish population might have actually survived the Holocaust in this TL. Indeed, the survival rates for Jews in Nazi-allied countries such as Romania, Hungary, and Finland were much higher than the survival rate for Polish Jewry in World War II in real life. Indeed, unfortunately life can be nasty and thus cause pride to have a cost. Indeed, Poland rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance and thus likely caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered; the same is also true of Lithuania when it rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance (to dismember Poland, of course) and thus caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered.

    Indeed, pride unfortunately sometimes has a significant cost in human lives. Thus, the best move would have been for France, Britain, and Poland to militarily overthrow Hitler and the Nazis early on in their rule--perhaps in 1933 or even in 1936. Of course, having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this.

    “having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this”

    Are you writing scripts for Hollywood? You do realise that German Nazism was about more than just ‘Hitler’?

    No amount of ‘alliance’ with Nazi Poland could change the fact that Poland was the designated ‘lebensraum’. It was the main German objective, the prize for the war. So offering alliance was rather pointless. I guess Poles could had offered to voluntary move to east of Ural, or to simply liquidate themselves, but even then Germany preferred to take it by force. It was more picturesque that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Mikhail says: • Website

    Re: Wency – http://www.unz.com/akarlin/huge-pew-survey-of-eastern-europe/#comment-2087920

    Offhand and without checking in great detail, Czechia seems to have more of an urban/cosmopolitan base, when compared to what has been evident in Slovakia.

    Czechs were the overall predominate group in Czechoslovakia. Somewhat similar to Napoleon, the Nazis exhibited a bit of a divide and conquer mindset.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Mikhail says: • Website
    @DCMG
    AP on a simplistic level there's a big difference in how Americans describe their ethnicity and how Russians do. Americans may say they are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish- Americans, Mexican-Americans, act. On the other hand with Russians it's always Russian first Orthodox, or Moslem or Buddhist, they are Russians first.

    Specifically, the Russian language respectfully notes that there’re ethnic Russian citizens of Russia, as well as non-ethnic Russian citizens of that country. Some in the West have misrepresented this distinction along the lines of a kind of apartheid.

    It’d be interesting to find a stat on the ethnicity of those saying they’re ethnic Russian, while being at least 1/4 another ethnic group or groups.

    Russia’s greatness is largely the result of having a considerable centuries long multi-ethnic dynamic.

    Read More
    • Disagree: ussr andy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    Poles as volatile, incompetent, unreliable, emotional poseurs, with deep, irrational traumas, prone to exaggerating, lying and cheating.
     
    Very interesting. I don't think Poles think about Slovaks much. Their opinion of Czechs is that Czechs are weak, and always bend to the strongest force. They didn't resist the Nazis at all basically, despite having a decent army, they were very subservient to the Soviets (much more so than were the Poles), and they went full materialist/liberal post 1990. They are described as feathers, blowing in the wind. (their behavior is rational given that they have always been a small nation, whereas Poles have not always been)

    True.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Beckow

    "common sense, adaptability and avoiding extremes"
     
    ...when you are a small nation in a geographically exposed location, the above can be described as 'weakness'. It applies to both Czechs and Slovaks and it has worked better than Polish 'resistance' and volatility, at least so far. Czechs and Slovaks are much richer, better governed, and have had a more quiet history with fewer tragedies.

    My point is about attitudes: Poles tend to extremes and exaggerations (often absurdly so). They also burn bridges and gain no allies. One can admire it from distance, but it has never worked. It introduces a large element of mythology and what can only be described as 'lying'. Czechs and Slovaks, on the other hand, pride themselves on 'living in truth', it is a value missing from Poland. I personally prefer full understanding of reality, of 'truth', to an emotional pleasures of myth-making. To each his own, some like it hot, but they shouldn't complain when they get burnt occasionally.

    Then again, the Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.

    For Poland, the tragedy wasn’t often being as powerful as some others – meshed with its instances of relatively considerable power, which alienated some.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland."
     
    This is simply not true. Czechs and Slovaks had states - Samo's kingdom, Great Moravia - starting in 7th century. Their 'defined' history preceded Polish history by a few hundred years. After that Czech Kingdom until 16th century was comparable to the Polish one (smaller, but more advanced).

    Poland was an Eastern European power, almost all of its large, conquered territory was in the east in what is today Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova. Those territories also were not ethnically Polish, they had Polish feudal class and Orthodox peasants. Poles are basically still angry that their empire building attempt failed, mostly because of religious and ethnic reasons.

    Poland was screwed and colonised by Germans from the West, and Poles tried to do the same towards the east - not much has changed, that's still the default Polish attitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Mr. XYZ
    : If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland's reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression. Of course, it would have been nice for them to tell Poland that they are only going to declare war on Germany and not actually attack it (indeed, Britain and France sat on the defensive as Poland got slaughtered).

    In addition to this, I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. While there very likely would have still been a severe bloodbath on the Eastern Front (with Nazi Germany + Slovakia + Poland + Hungary + Romania vs. the Soviet Union), a significant part of Poland's Jewish population might have actually survived the Holocaust in this TL. Indeed, the survival rates for Jews in Nazi-allied countries such as Romania, Hungary, and Finland were much higher than the survival rate for Polish Jewry in World War II in real life. Indeed, unfortunately life can be nasty and thus cause pride to have a cost. Indeed, Poland rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance and thus likely caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered; the same is also true of Lithuania when it rejected Nazi Germany's offer of alliance (to dismember Poland, of course) and thus caused a (much) larger percentage of its Jewish population to get murdered.

    Indeed, pride unfortunately sometimes has a significant cost in human lives. Thus, the best move would have been for France, Britain, and Poland to militarily overthrow Hitler and the Nazis early on in their rule--perhaps in 1933 or even in 1936. Of course, having someone be brave enough to give Hitler a bullet to the head sometime in the 1920s might have also worked for this.

    I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance.

    The USSR actually did accept Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance. Things didn’t turn out better, they turned out worse. I doubt it would have been different for Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    The USSR actually did accept Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance.
     
    The "alliance" with Germany did not exist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. melanf says:
    @anonymous coward

    I wonder if things would have been at least a tiny bit better had Poland accepted Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance.
     
    The USSR actually did accept Nazi Germany's offer of alliance. Things didn't turn out better, they turned out worse. I doubt it would have been different for Poland.

    The USSR actually did accept Nazi Germany’s offer of alliance.

    The “alliance” with Germany did not exist

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. LondonBob says:
    @AP

    If one wants to be technical, the Czechs were willing to fight in 1938. Indeed, it was Britain and France who sold them out
     
    When Britain and France sold them out, the Czechs meekly surrendered their territory without firing a shot. IIRC Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn't want to fight together with Poland in such a case. So Poland helped itself to Polish-inhabited territories. Czechs did nothing there, also.

    I can't blame the Czechs for surrendering - it's a small nation, and had no chance of winning. Combined with Poland, in 1938, it still would have lost, but would have been an interesting fight.

    Also, in regards to a Polish-Nazi alliance, I have heard some people (such as Pat Buchanan) speculate that the reason for Poland’s reject of such an alliance was the fact that Britain and France offered Poland a guarantee against German aggression.
     
    Poles were behaving proudly before the Germans regardless of the western allies. They obviously overestimated their own capabilities (or underestimated the Germans). Poland didn't do much worse than did France, a supposed Great Power, however.

    Poles thought they would be in Berlin within a week, they actually sought war with Germany.

    After Anschluss Czechoslovakia was defenceless with Austria providing an easy invasion route hence Benes reluctance to fight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "Poland offered to help, but Czechs didn’t want to fight"
     
    What? I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border). So it went nowhere and might had been an empty promise.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war. But they remembered the Munich betrayal.

    Poles paid a terrible price for their betrayal a year later. I guess that's why you invent non-existent 'offer of help'. Trying to deny reality leads to some strange verbal convulsions. Poland at that time acted as a de facto Hitler's ally, and so did France and UK. Is that too painful to acknowledge?

    I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.

    I had heard that prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories. Unlike the Western countries, Poland would have backed up its alliance. Czechoslovakia refused.

    Re: Much – If Czechoslovakia was going to give up its territory anyways, Poland might as well preserve its own co-ethnics.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border).

    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war.

    Czechs were well-fortified and well-armed, and IIRC had a good air force. They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn’t fire a shot.

    And that’s the difference between Czechs, and Poles, or Russians. My wife’s Russian grandfather was at Brest fortress when the war started. They were surrounded, but all of the Russians there fought to the death. Even after it was clear that Poland would fall, Poles continued fighting, as here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    The Polish forces on the Hel peninsula held out until October:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hel

    The combined French sand British forces outlasted the Poles by only a week and half, once the Germans invaded France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories"
     
    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for 'overtures'.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938, in the process completely assuring its own suffering in WWII. That is the core Polish problem, they are unstable and don't think stuff through. They are also always eager to line up as 'allies' for any and all attacks coming from the West. They do seem to have a character problem, it starts with not telling the truth about our common history.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc...) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of 'Silesians', but a Czech plurality. These 'protect my ethnic brothers' disputes are not clear-cut, the borders are imperfect. Germans made the same argument about Sudeten Germans. We could be killing each other until cows come home and it still would not be 'justly' resolved. The fact is that Poland stabbed its closest possible allies in the back.


    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory
     
    Well, eventually they did in 1944. After losing millions of people. As I said previously, there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction - it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and 'allowed' themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn't wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic, that I wonder what the consequences will be. It will not be good.


    "Czechs were well-fortified and armed...They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn’t fire a shot."

     

    It was hopeless - they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks. And Germans would kill a lot more people in revenge. You underestimate how much the British, French (and Polish) betrayal meant. It was rational to retreat and wait out the war. You also forget that Czech army was multi-ethnic with only Czechs and Slovaks reliable. Germans, Hungarians, Poles, etc... in the army were at best neutral.

    Slovaks eventually staged an uprising against Germans in 1944, and fought relatively well. But among all European nations involved, Czechs and Slovaks managed to survive WWII with the least proportional casualties - good, bad, smart, cowardly? Probably all of it. Today's Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time, so maybe we were just ahead of others.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @melanf

    Those are Udmurts.
     
    In the picture in the message 41 - Mordva (Erzya). Udmurt even more redheads (claim to be the most red haired people on earth).

    At the pictures in post 19 - other people: not Mordvinians and not Udmurts . Anthropological evidence indicates that the people (from post 19) - pretty close copy of the Norwegians.
    http://s016.radikal.ru/i337/1711/1b/d1f5d64ee7ad.jpg
    But it is not Germanic-speaking people, and not even Indo-Europeans


    When I go to a village with such origins I am struck by how blond they are. Same for relict “Ukrainian” villages.
     
    Ukrainians are very blond??? I highly doubt
    http://p.im9.eu/mapporn-blonde-hair-across-the-world-4972x2517.jpg

    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.
     
    This version contradicts the data of anthropology. Russians (and Belarusians) are on average more blond than the Ukrainians. In Siberia (and in the Russian far East) a high percentage of blondes is explained by the fact that the original Russian population of Siberia - from the Russian North (where the population is extremely blonde).

    The Russian North-West (near Petersburg)
    http://s014.radikal.ru/i329/1711/c6/7efd9a096af6.jpg

    http://s019.radikal.ru/i629/1711/7a/dee3ffc740b9.jpg

    And this is Novosibirsk
    http://s16.radikal.ru/i190/1711/cb/e7d45da8f3ef.jpg


    And the Ukrainians from Vinnitsa
    http://orthodox.vinnica.ua/content/mambo/Futbol_MP_11_01.jpg

    Probably all Ukrainian blondes emigrated to the far East

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Beckow says:
    @Mikhail
    Then again, the Czechs and Slovaks can't trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.

    For Poland, the tragedy wasn't often being as powerful as some others - meshed with its instances of relatively considerable power, which alienated some.

    “Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.”

    This is simply not true. Czechs and Slovaks had states – Samo’s kingdom, Great Moravia – starting in 7th century. Their ‘defined’ history preceded Polish history by a few hundred years. After that Czech Kingdom until 16th century was comparable to the Polish one (smaller, but more advanced).

    Poland was an Eastern European power, almost all of its large, conquered territory was in the east in what is today Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova. Those territories also were not ethnically Polish, they had Polish feudal class and Orthodox peasants. Poles are basically still angry that their empire building attempt failed, mostly because of religious and ethnic reasons.

    Poland was screwed and colonised by Germans from the West, and Poles tried to do the same towards the east – not much has changed, that’s still the default Polish attitude.

    Read More
    • Agree: polskijoe
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    I chose my words carefully. The excerpted quote you highlight of mine isn't untrue:

    “Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.”

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Beckow says:
    @AP

    I have never heard about Poland offering to help. To the contrary, as soon as Munich Treaty between UK-France and Nazi Germany was signed (now, that was a true alliance that started WWII), Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and took 3 pieces of territory.
     
    I had heard that prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories. Unlike the Western countries, Poland would have backed up its alliance. Czechoslovakia refused.

    Re: Much - If Czechoslovakia was going to give up its territory anyways, Poland might as well preserve its own co-ethnics.

    The only country that offered help to Czechoslovakia against Nazi onslaught was Soviet Russia. But they were told by Poland that they will not be able to cross the Polish territory (Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia had no common border).
     
    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory.

    My grandpa was on the border together with about a million Czechoslovak soldiers. After Munich they had no chance, it would be a massacre, they were surrounded by Germany, Hungary and Poland. So they went home, and almost all of them survived the war.
     
    Czechs were well-fortified and well-armed, and IIRC had a good air force. They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn't fire a shot.

    And that's the difference between Czechs, and Poles, or Russians. My wife's Russian grandfather was at Brest fortress when the war started. They were surrounded, but all of the Russians there fought to the death. Even after it was clear that Poland would fall, Poles continued fighting, as here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    The Polish forces on the Hel peninsula held out until October:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hel

    The combined French sand British forces outlasted the Poles by only a week and half, once the Germans invaded France.

    “prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories”

    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for ‘overtures’.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938, in the process completely assuring its own suffering in WWII. That is the core Polish problem, they are unstable and don’t think stuff through. They are also always eager to line up as ‘allies’ for any and all attacks coming from the West. They do seem to have a character problem, it starts with not telling the truth about our common history.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc…) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of ‘Silesians’, but a Czech plurality. These ‘protect my ethnic brothers’ disputes are not clear-cut, the borders are imperfect. Germans made the same argument about Sudeten Germans. We could be killing each other until cows come home and it still would not be ‘justly’ resolved. The fact is that Poland stabbed its closest possible allies in the back.

    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory

    Well, eventually they did in 1944. After losing millions of people. As I said previously, there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn’t wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic, that I wonder what the consequences will be. It will not be good.

    “Czechs were well-fortified and armed…They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn’t fire a shot.”

    It was hopeless – they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks. And Germans would kill a lot more people in revenge. You underestimate how much the British, French (and Polish) betrayal meant. It was rational to retreat and wait out the war. You also forget that Czech army was multi-ethnic with only Czechs and Slovaks reliable. Germans, Hungarians, Poles, etc… in the army were at best neutral.

    Slovaks eventually staged an uprising against Germans in 1944, and fought relatively well. But among all European nations involved, Czechs and Slovaks managed to survive WWII with the least proportional casualties – good, bad, smart, cowardly? Probably all of it. Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time, so maybe we were just ahead of others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories”

    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for ‘overtures’.
     
    Poland wanted an alliance with Czechoslovakia in exchange for a small piece of territory that Czechoslovakia had grabbed while Poland was fighting in the East after World War I, that was inhabited mostly by Poles.

    The area Poland wanted was much than what Germany took, and Poland had no end-game of occupying all of Czechoslovakia, as Germany did. Essentially, Poland wanted an anti-German alliance, but this piece of territory stood in the way for Poland.

    There is, of course irony here: Poland itself was sitting in Ukrainian-inhabited territories that it had grabbed.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938
     
    In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away. If it was going to give lands away to the Germans, the Poles might as well take their lands.

    You are complaining that the Poles didn't allow the Czechs to surrender Polish-inhabited lands within Czechoslovakia to the Germans without a fight, as the Czechs surrendered everything else they owned without a fight.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc…) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of ‘Silesians’, but a Czech plurality
     
    1910 Austrian census had 124,00 Polish speakers, 33,000 Czech speakers, and 22,000 German speakers.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic
     
    To Russians for brutalizing them for decades, but not killing them?

    If a woman is saved from a serial killer, by a brutal rapist who locks her in his basement for years before she escapes, should she be grateful to the rapist because he kept her alive and saved her from the killer? Especially if the rapist only "saved" her because the killer has attacked him and lost the fight?

    Ingratitude...

    It was hopeless – they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks.
     
    The Czechoslovak military was well-trained, well-equipped, and occupied fortified positions with excellent air support. And Germany's military in 1938 was not what it would be even a couple years later. If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn't fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.

    Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time
     
    Is it something to be proud of?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Beckow says:
    @Chet Bradley
    Hi Beckow, thanks for all your insightful comments. I especially liked "...be more honourable in their personal behaviour, and less obsessed with honour on a national level."

    As a Serb, I think this could easily apply to Serbs too. And I also wish that our history had been more like Czech/Slovak history and less like Polish history, i.e. banging your head against the wall really hard without paying attention to the consequences. Certainly with regards to our 20th century history.

    At least we're in our right minds in our attitudes towards Russia. :)

    “banging your head against the wall really hard without paying attention to the consequences”

    That’s the image, the wall always wins. Thanks for the kind words…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Beckow

    "Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland."
     
    This is simply not true. Czechs and Slovaks had states - Samo's kingdom, Great Moravia - starting in 7th century. Their 'defined' history preceded Polish history by a few hundred years. After that Czech Kingdom until 16th century was comparable to the Polish one (smaller, but more advanced).

    Poland was an Eastern European power, almost all of its large, conquered territory was in the east in what is today Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova. Those territories also were not ethnically Polish, they had Polish feudal class and Orthodox peasants. Poles are basically still angry that their empire building attempt failed, mostly because of religious and ethnic reasons.

    Poland was screwed and colonised by Germans from the West, and Poles tried to do the same towards the east - not much has changed, that's still the default Polish attitude.

    I chose my words carefully. The excerpted quote you highlight of mine isn’t untrue:

    “Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Careful doesn't equal accurate. I guess it depends on how one defines 'trace back', 'defined history' and what is Central versus Eastern Europe.

    You have to twist all of them to not be 'untrue'. And that's a slippery slope, but I get your meaning now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Beckow says:
    @Mikhail
    I chose my words carefully. The excerpted quote you highlight of mine isn't untrue:

    “Czechs and Slovaks can’t trace back as long a defined history as a major Central European power like Poland.”

    Careful doesn’t equal accurate. I guess it depends on how one defines ‘trace back’, ‘defined history’ and what is Central versus Eastern Europe.

    You have to twist all of them to not be ‘untrue’. And that’s a slippery slope, but I get your meaning now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    As I initially mentioned, another key element takes into consideration great power status, which (in the regional sense) the Poles had to a considerable degree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Anatoly Karlin

    1) Eastern Europe’s population is dropping fast, but most say women should be having kids – that’s just weird.
     
    Communism froze social attitudes.

    Women owe it to society to have children = sounds icky to modern ears. No so much to 40+ year old East Europeans.

    2) Amazing how many people in Eastern Europe think drinking alcohol is wrong – the numbers are pretty shocking.
     
    And whites in Red states in the US support "family values" more than whites in Blue ones, even though they fail to live up to it as well as Blue ones.

    We want what we lack.

    This is a common fallacy- whites in red states do better in family value metrics that whites in blue states. Red states just happen to have a ton of blacks in them who perform horribly in this regard.

    The only metric that is occasionally an outlier in these surveys is illegimate births- which is the result of unwanted pregnancies in the red states being for more likely to be carried to term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. melanf says:
    @Philip Owen
    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.

    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.

    This version contradicts the data of anthropology. Russians (and Belarusians) are on average more blond than the Ukrainians. In Siberia (and in the Russian far East) a high percentage of blondes is explained by the fact that the original Russian population of Siberia – from the Russian North (where the population is extremely blonde).

    The Russian North-West (near Petersburg)
    And this is Novosibirsk

    And the Ukrainians from Vinnitsa
    Probably all Ukrainian blondes emigrated to the far East

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.

    School in Rivne:

    http://culture-rivne.com.ua/img/upload-files/facilities/gallery/IMG_5598.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Beckow
    Careful doesn't equal accurate. I guess it depends on how one defines 'trace back', 'defined history' and what is Central versus Eastern Europe.

    You have to twist all of them to not be 'untrue'. And that's a slippery slope, but I get your meaning now.

    As I initially mentioned, another key element takes into consideration great power status, which (in the regional sense) the Poles had to a considerable degree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories"
     
    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for 'overtures'.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938, in the process completely assuring its own suffering in WWII. That is the core Polish problem, they are unstable and don't think stuff through. They are also always eager to line up as 'allies' for any and all attacks coming from the West. They do seem to have a character problem, it starts with not telling the truth about our common history.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc...) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of 'Silesians', but a Czech plurality. These 'protect my ethnic brothers' disputes are not clear-cut, the borders are imperfect. Germans made the same argument about Sudeten Germans. We could be killing each other until cows come home and it still would not be 'justly' resolved. The fact is that Poland stabbed its closest possible allies in the back.


    Poles ought not be blamed for refusing to allow millions of Soviet troops passing through its territory
     
    Well, eventually they did in 1944. After losing millions of people. As I said previously, there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction - it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and 'allowed' themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn't wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic, that I wonder what the consequences will be. It will not be good.


    "Czechs were well-fortified and armed...They would have ultimately lost, but would have inflicted very heavy casualties upon the invading Germans. But they didn’t fire a shot."

     

    It was hopeless - they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks. And Germans would kill a lot more people in revenge. You underestimate how much the British, French (and Polish) betrayal meant. It was rational to retreat and wait out the war. You also forget that Czech army was multi-ethnic with only Czechs and Slovaks reliable. Germans, Hungarians, Poles, etc... in the army were at best neutral.

    Slovaks eventually staged an uprising against Germans in 1944, and fought relatively well. But among all European nations involved, Czechs and Slovaks managed to survive WWII with the least proportional casualties - good, bad, smart, cowardly? Probably all of it. Today's Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time, so maybe we were just ahead of others.

    “prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories”

    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for ‘overtures’.

    Poland wanted an alliance with Czechoslovakia in exchange for a small piece of territory that Czechoslovakia had grabbed while Poland was fighting in the East after World War I, that was inhabited mostly by Poles.

    The area Poland wanted was much than what Germany took, and Poland had no end-game of occupying all of Czechoslovakia, as Germany did. Essentially, Poland wanted an anti-German alliance, but this piece of territory stood in the way for Poland.

    There is, of course irony here: Poland itself was sitting in Ukrainian-inhabited territories that it had grabbed.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938

    In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away. If it was going to give lands away to the Germans, the Poles might as well take their lands.

    You are complaining that the Poles didn’t allow the Czechs to surrender Polish-inhabited lands within Czechoslovakia to the Germans without a fight, as the Czechs surrendered everything else they owned without a fight.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc…) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of ‘Silesians’, but a Czech plurality

    1910 Austrian census had 124,00 Polish speakers, 33,000 Czech speakers, and 22,000 German speakers.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic

    To Russians for brutalizing them for decades, but not killing them?

    If a woman is saved from a serial killer, by a brutal rapist who locks her in his basement for years before she escapes, should she be grateful to the rapist because he kept her alive and saved her from the killer? Especially if the rapist only “saved” her because the killer has attacked him and lost the fight?

    Ingratitude…

    It was hopeless – they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks.

    The Czechoslovak military was well-trained, well-equipped, and occupied fortified positions with excellent air support. And Germany’s military in 1938 was not what it would be even a couple years later. If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.

    Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time

    Is it something to be proud of?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chet Bradley

    If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.
     
    It's not smart in a sense, it's just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later. "Let you and him fight" in this case makes perfect sense from a Polish perspective, but I don't see why the Czechs should take you up on that offer.

    As Beckow already demonstrated to you repeatedly, you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions. Bad not in a historical honor sense, but bad in a sense that they cost you a ton of lives. And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don't show any gratitude. Which you can't face, which is why you avoided the reply to Beckow's comment in #77:

    ...there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn’t wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.
     
    There's a saying in my part of the world: Croats are the bravest nation, not because they have no fear, but because they have no shame. Seems to me your comments and attitude put you in a pretty close category.
    , @Beckow

    "In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away"
     
    Is that what happened? So I guess in 1939 Poland decided to give its lands away. This is rich, your ability to twist meaning of words...

    Poland never offered an 'alliance', that is a lie. They joined Nazis in dismembering Czechoslovakia. But Poland offered an alliance to Hiter in 1935 to jointly attack Soviet Union, even Hiter turned them down. Tesin district was split in 1918, so your numbers are not accurate - the part that Poland grabbed after Munich had Czech and Silesian majority. You mix Silesians with Poles, Ostrava today is full of Silesians (they have a Silesian university) and they speak Czech. People living there preferred rich Czechoslovakia to poor, autocratic Poland.

    Chet summarised it best:


    "you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions...And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don’t show any gratitude.
     
    This is the core issue. People living around Poles have known this for centuries. Poles talk big, behave emotionally, and when consequences hit, they want others to die on their behalf. And when people sacrifice their lives for Poles, there is zero gratitude. Instead Poles poetically blab about 'rapes and basements' totally ignoring the actual reality that Russians saved their very existence and behaved quite well even after WWII (it was the Polish communists that did most damage - there were 3 million members of the Communist party in Poland in 1980). You bizarrely exaggerate the 'oppression' and the role outsiders played in it. One more time: Germans literally murdered 20% of Polish population, and were going to get rid of the rest. If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland, nobody else would. You refuse to address that point, why?

    "Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time

    Is it something to be proud of?"

     

    I don't know, maybe not. I was simply describing today's EU reality. But if we as Europeans want to change that mentality, let's start by understanding the historical truths. Lying, mythologizing, and hating each other is not helpful. The 'enemy' is not in the east, Russians are not about to take over our cities, far from it. (Save us the belly-aching about Crimea or Donetsk, those have been Russian speaking for centuries...and when Nato by force took over Kosovo from Serbia, Poland was ok with it - so don't be a hypocrite). The gradual replacement of all of our cultures and of us as nations is the real threat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @AP

    “prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories”

    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for ‘overtures’.
     
    Poland wanted an alliance with Czechoslovakia in exchange for a small piece of territory that Czechoslovakia had grabbed while Poland was fighting in the East after World War I, that was inhabited mostly by Poles.

    The area Poland wanted was much than what Germany took, and Poland had no end-game of occupying all of Czechoslovakia, as Germany did. Essentially, Poland wanted an anti-German alliance, but this piece of territory stood in the way for Poland.

    There is, of course irony here: Poland itself was sitting in Ukrainian-inhabited territories that it had grabbed.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938
     
    In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away. If it was going to give lands away to the Germans, the Poles might as well take their lands.

    You are complaining that the Poles didn't allow the Czechs to surrender Polish-inhabited lands within Czechoslovakia to the Germans without a fight, as the Czechs surrendered everything else they owned without a fight.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc…) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of ‘Silesians’, but a Czech plurality
     
    1910 Austrian census had 124,00 Polish speakers, 33,000 Czech speakers, and 22,000 German speakers.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic
     
    To Russians for brutalizing them for decades, but not killing them?

    If a woman is saved from a serial killer, by a brutal rapist who locks her in his basement for years before she escapes, should she be grateful to the rapist because he kept her alive and saved her from the killer? Especially if the rapist only "saved" her because the killer has attacked him and lost the fight?

    Ingratitude...

    It was hopeless – they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks.
     
    The Czechoslovak military was well-trained, well-equipped, and occupied fortified positions with excellent air support. And Germany's military in 1938 was not what it would be even a couple years later. If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn't fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.

    Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time
     
    Is it something to be proud of?

    If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.

    It’s not smart in a sense, it’s just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later. “Let you and him fight” in this case makes perfect sense from a Polish perspective, but I don’t see why the Czechs should take you up on that offer.

    As Beckow already demonstrated to you repeatedly, you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions. Bad not in a historical honor sense, but bad in a sense that they cost you a ton of lives. And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don’t show any gratitude. Which you can’t face, which is why you avoided the reply to Beckow’s comment in #77:

    …there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn’t wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.

    There’s a saying in my part of the world: Croats are the bravest nation, not because they have no fear, but because they have no shame. Seems to me your comments and attitude put you in a pretty close category.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you. "

    It’s not smart in a sense, it’s just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later.
     
    And perhaps the Poles should not have fought either, and let the Russians fully handle it. Maybe the Russians should not have fought, and let the Americans handle it. Etc. Fortunately the world was not all as smart as the Czechs.

    And when others die for you (Soviet Union),
     
    The Soviets didn't die for the Poles, they fought and died because they were attacked by the Germans, and unlike the Czechs the Soviets fought back. Fighting back meant going through Poland to get to Germany, and enslaving Poland along the way.

    there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians.
     
    Except they didn't. They resisted the Soviets also, though by that time were mostly spent.

    I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them
     
    I suspect most Poles wouldn't mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. AP says:
    @Chet Bradley

    If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.
     
    It's not smart in a sense, it's just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later. "Let you and him fight" in this case makes perfect sense from a Polish perspective, but I don't see why the Czechs should take you up on that offer.

    As Beckow already demonstrated to you repeatedly, you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions. Bad not in a historical honor sense, but bad in a sense that they cost you a ton of lives. And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don't show any gratitude. Which you can't face, which is why you avoided the reply to Beckow's comment in #77:

    ...there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians. I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them. I am sure they were about to invade any moment. I am also sure Anglos couldn’t wait to sacrifice half a million soldiers for Poland.
     
    There's a saying in my part of the world: Croats are the bravest nation, not because they have no fear, but because they have no shame. Seems to me your comments and attitude put you in a pretty close category.

    “They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you. ”

    It’s not smart in a sense, it’s just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later.

    And perhaps the Poles should not have fought either, and let the Russians fully handle it. Maybe the Russians should not have fought, and let the Americans handle it. Etc. Fortunately the world was not all as smart as the Czechs.

    And when others die for you (Soviet Union),

    The Soviets didn’t die for the Poles, they fought and died because they were attacked by the Germans, and unlike the Czechs the Soviets fought back. Fighting back meant going through Poland to get to Germany, and enslaving Poland along the way.

    there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians.

    Except they didn’t. They resisted the Soviets also, though by that time were mostly spent.

    I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them

    I suspect most Poles wouldn’t mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "I suspect most Poles wouldn’t mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else."
     
    I give you some credit for finally addressing this point. But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border, Western allies and Poles didn't have the strength to defeat Germany. German armies in the east were still extremely strong in the summer of 1944. Without Soviet Union in the war, Germany would easily dominate the weak allied forces who were reluctant to have casualties.

    The two possible scenarios would be:
    - Germany and West negotiating an orderly end to WWII with Germany almost certainly keeping control of Poland and Nazis staying in charge (or a quasi-Nazi military substitute).
    - A prolonged war of attrition with Germany eventually 'surrendering' but with much better terms. Again, Poland would had stayed occupied for years and the massacring of Poles would continue.

    West simply had no strength - or a desire - to sacrifice half a million soldiers to liberate Poland. And Poles, as you admit, were 'spent' by 1944.

    Those were the options. In either case Poles were doomed. And how many Anglos ever died for Poland?

    Your dismissal of the Russian enormous sacrifice is very ugly. After losing half a million soldiers and being attacked repeatedly from the Polish territory they had a right to be 'occupying' it after WWII.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. AP says:
    @melanf

    The blonds in the Russian Far East are mostly Ukrainian, for example.
     
    This version contradicts the data of anthropology. Russians (and Belarusians) are on average more blond than the Ukrainians. In Siberia (and in the Russian far East) a high percentage of blondes is explained by the fact that the original Russian population of Siberia - from the Russian North (where the population is extremely blonde).

    The Russian North-West (near Petersburg)
    http://s014.radikal.ru/i329/1711/c6/7efd9a096af6.jpg

    http://s019.radikal.ru/i629/1711/7a/dee3ffc740b9.jpg

    And this is Novosibirsk
    http://s16.radikal.ru/i190/1711/cb/e7d45da8f3ef.jpg


    And the Ukrainians from Vinnitsa
    http://orthodox.vinnica.ua/content/mambo/Futbol_MP_11_01.jpg

    Probably all Ukrainian blondes emigrated to the far East

    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.

    School in Rivne:

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.
     
    Common European rule - the closer to the North, the more blondes.
    Ukrainians in the North of Ukraine more blonde than in the South. Belarusians are even more blonde than Northern Ukrainians. Russian in the South of Russia, same as Ukrainians. Russian in the North of Russia is extremely blonde (most blonde people in the world, together with Finns and Scandinavians). In result the average Russian is much more blonde than the Ukrainians
    https://ii.yuki.la/2/a2/4bd357c136ae287bea67d1f575c09ee68e3c696724727c723858cb8d02e8da22.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Beckow says:
    @AP

    “prior to Munich Poland was making military overtures to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Polish-inhabited territories”

    How is that different from simply attacking a country and asking it to surrender territory? The Munich dictate was the same thing: territory for ‘overtures’.
     
    Poland wanted an alliance with Czechoslovakia in exchange for a small piece of territory that Czechoslovakia had grabbed while Poland was fighting in the East after World War I, that was inhabited mostly by Poles.

    The area Poland wanted was much than what Germany took, and Poland had no end-game of occupying all of Czechoslovakia, as Germany did. Essentially, Poland wanted an anti-German alliance, but this piece of territory stood in the way for Poland.

    There is, of course irony here: Poland itself was sitting in Ukrainian-inhabited territories that it had grabbed.

    Poland stabbed Czechoslovakia in the back in 1938
     
    In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away. If it was going to give lands away to the Germans, the Poles might as well take their lands.

    You are complaining that the Poles didn't allow the Czechs to surrender Polish-inhabited lands within Czechoslovakia to the Germans without a fight, as the Czechs surrendered everything else they owned without a fight.

    The territories in question (Tesin, etc…) were mixed, with a Polish minority, lots of ‘Silesians’, but a Czech plurality
     
    1910 Austrian census had 124,00 Polish speakers, 33,000 Czech speakers, and 22,000 German speakers.

    This Polish ingratitude is so massive, so cosmic
     
    To Russians for brutalizing them for decades, but not killing them?

    If a woman is saved from a serial killer, by a brutal rapist who locks her in his basement for years before she escapes, should she be grateful to the rapist because he kept her alive and saved her from the killer? Especially if the rapist only "saved" her because the killer has attacked him and lost the fight?

    Ingratitude...

    It was hopeless – they were completely surrounded. They could had killed a few thousand Germans on the way down, but it would be over in 2-3 weeks.
     
    The Czechoslovak military was well-trained, well-equipped, and occupied fortified positions with excellent air support. And Germany's military in 1938 was not what it would be even a couple years later. If the Czechoslovaks had fought, they would have lost but would have made the Germans pay a price. Perhaps in that case Germany would have been less eager for new battles, saving many lives. Perhaps others would have learned more about the German military and techniques, also saving many lives. But instead, unlike Poles, or Finns, or other peoples, Czechoslovaks thought of their immediate survival. They didn't fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you.

    Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time
     
    Is it something to be proud of?

    “In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away”

    Is that what happened? So I guess in 1939 Poland decided to give its lands away. This is rich, your ability to twist meaning of words…

    Poland never offered an ‘alliance’, that is a lie. They joined Nazis in dismembering Czechoslovakia. But Poland offered an alliance to Hiter in 1935 to jointly attack Soviet Union, even Hiter turned them down. Tesin district was split in 1918, so your numbers are not accurate – the part that Poland grabbed after Munich had Czech and Silesian majority. You mix Silesians with Poles, Ostrava today is full of Silesians (they have a Silesian university) and they speak Czech. People living there preferred rich Czechoslovakia to poor, autocratic Poland.

    Chet summarised it best:

    “you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions…And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don’t show any gratitude.

    This is the core issue. People living around Poles have known this for centuries. Poles talk big, behave emotionally, and when consequences hit, they want others to die on their behalf. And when people sacrifice their lives for Poles, there is zero gratitude. Instead Poles poetically blab about ‘rapes and basements’ totally ignoring the actual reality that Russians saved their very existence and behaved quite well even after WWII (it was the Polish communists that did most damage – there were 3 million members of the Communist party in Poland in 1980). You bizarrely exaggerate the ‘oppression’ and the role outsiders played in it. One more time: Germans literally murdered 20% of Polish population, and were going to get rid of the rest. If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland, nobody else would. You refuse to address that point, why?

    “Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time

    Is it something to be proud of?”

    I don’t know, maybe not. I was simply describing today’s EU reality. But if we as Europeans want to change that mentality, let’s start by understanding the historical truths. Lying, mythologizing, and hating each other is not helpful. The ‘enemy‘ is not in the east, Russians are not about to take over our cities, far from it. (Save us the belly-aching about Crimea or Donetsk, those have been Russian speaking for centuries…and when Nato by force took over Kosovo from Serbia, Poland was ok with it – so don’t be a hypocrite). The gradual replacement of all of our cultures and of us as nations is the real threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Is that what happened? So I guess in 1939 Poland decided to give its lands away. This is rich, your ability to twist meaning of words…
     
    Fighting back isn't giving one's land away. The Czechs gave theirs away.

    Poland never offered an ‘alliance’, that is a lie.
     
    It didn't get that far. Wanting an alliance and offering it are two different things. Poland was concenred about both Gerany and the USSR. The conflict with Czechoslovakia was not helpful. Polish-populated Tesin was a sticking point.

    Tesin district was split in 1918, so your numbers are not accurate – the part that Poland grabbed after Munich had Czech and Silesian majority. You mix Silesians with Poles, Ostrava today is full of Silesians (they have a Silesian university) and they speak Czech.
     
    70 years of Czechification means they now speak Czech. I've visited Silesian Poland and know Silesian Poles. They are one people.

    Poles talk big, behave emotionally, and when consequences hit, they want others to die on their behalf.
     
    So Poles didn't die on anyone's behalf? Really?

    totally ignoring the actual reality that Russians saved their very existence
     
    Yes, the rapist freed the victim from the serial killer who had attacked him,and brutalized (buit did not kill) the victim afterwards, for many years. So much ot be grateful for.

    it was the Polish communists that did most damage – there were 3 million members of the Communist party in Poland in 1980
     
    Uh huh. and who istalled them? And how long would this have lasted without Soviet tanks? A week? A month?

    Germans literally murdered 20% of Polish population, and were going to get rid of the rest. If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland
     
    One more time: Soviets (it was not just Russians) did not sacrifice anybody to save Poland. They sacrifced because Germany attacked them, and they had to get through Poland to conquer Germany. They did not liberate Poland along the way, but enslaved it. The fact the slavery is not as bad as extinction doesn't mean Poles should be grateful for their slavery.

    If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland, nobody else would
     
    Again you lie about "Russians." It was more than Russians.

    Soviets didn't sacrifice anybody to save Poland, they lost lives to defeat Germany, after Germany had attacked them first. Who knows - maybe if Poles had behaved as Czechs, given up without a fight and served the new masters more or less peacefully withot causing a lot of trouble, it would have been just enough for the Germans to win. Good thng for the world that not everyone was like the Czechs.

    If Soviets had stopped at the Polish border, the Western allies would have eventually reached Berlin and Poland would have had a true liberation after the German collapse, rather than reoccupation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Beckow says:
    @AP

    "They didn’t fight at all. Smart in a sense, to let others die for you. "

    It’s not smart in a sense, it’s just smart. The alternative you proposed is, let the Czechs fight and lose so that Poles can lose fewer people later.
     
    And perhaps the Poles should not have fought either, and let the Russians fully handle it. Maybe the Russians should not have fought, and let the Americans handle it. Etc. Fortunately the world was not all as smart as the Czechs.

    And when others die for you (Soviet Union),
     
    The Soviets didn't die for the Poles, they fought and died because they were attacked by the Germans, and unlike the Czechs the Soviets fought back. Fighting back meant going through Poland to get to Germany, and enslaving Poland along the way.

    there was nobody else available to save the Poles from eventual extinction – it was Soviet Russia or be gone. I find it amusing that by 1944 most Poles finally understood that and ‘allowed’ themselves to be liberated by the evil Russians.
     
    Except they didn't. They resisted the Soviets also, though by that time were mostly spent.

    I often think that Russia should had simply stopped on the Polish border, save itself half a million soldiers who died liberating Poland, and watch as Poles wait for the British, Canadian, Belgian, American troops to come to liberate them
     
    I suspect most Poles wouldn't mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else.

    “I suspect most Poles wouldn’t mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else.”

    I give you some credit for finally addressing this point. But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border, Western allies and Poles didn’t have the strength to defeat Germany. German armies in the east were still extremely strong in the summer of 1944. Without Soviet Union in the war, Germany would easily dominate the weak allied forces who were reluctant to have casualties.

    The two possible scenarios would be:
    - Germany and West negotiating an orderly end to WWII with Germany almost certainly keeping control of Poland and Nazis staying in charge (or a quasi-Nazi military substitute).
    - A prolonged war of attrition with Germany eventually ‘surrendering’ but with much better terms. Again, Poland would had stayed occupied for years and the massacring of Poles would continue.

    West simply had no strength – or a desire – to sacrifice half a million soldiers to liberate Poland. And Poles, as you admit, were ‘spent’ by 1944.

    Those were the options. In either case Poles were doomed. And how many Anglos ever died for Poland?

    Your dismissal of the Russian enormous sacrifice is very ugly. After losing half a million soldiers and being attacked repeatedly from the Polish territory they had a right to be ‘occupying’ it after WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border
     
    By the time the Soviets got to the Polish border in mid July 1944 the Germans were sufficiently ground down (the Soviets had crushed them in Operation Bagration in June-July that year) that the Western allies would have eventually won:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration#Aftermath

    Not before, but after the Western Allies had the strength to defeat Germany.

    Obviously the Soviets would have been foolish not to keep going and take Berlin, rather then let the Western Allies grab it. But don't pretend that the Soviets were marching west in order to liberate Poland or that those Soviet casualties were for the sake of liberating Poland. It was all about crushing the Germans and taking Berlin. Enslaving Poland was a consequence of this.

    By the time the Western allies defeated Germany Poland would either be able to liberate itself (how many Polish troops in Poland once Berlin is besieged?) or liberation would be a demand by the Western allies - remember Polish participation among Western allies throughout World War II (10% of pilots in Battle of Britain were Poles). West would have much more leverage over defeated Germans than over Stalin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "In 1938 Czechoslovakia decided to give its lands away"
     
    Is that what happened? So I guess in 1939 Poland decided to give its lands away. This is rich, your ability to twist meaning of words...

    Poland never offered an 'alliance', that is a lie. They joined Nazis in dismembering Czechoslovakia. But Poland offered an alliance to Hiter in 1935 to jointly attack Soviet Union, even Hiter turned them down. Tesin district was split in 1918, so your numbers are not accurate - the part that Poland grabbed after Munich had Czech and Silesian majority. You mix Silesians with Poles, Ostrava today is full of Silesians (they have a Silesian university) and they speak Czech. People living there preferred rich Czechoslovakia to poor, autocratic Poland.

    Chet summarised it best:


    "you seem to be asking others to carry the burden of your bad decisions...And when others die for you (Soviet Union), you don’t show any gratitude.
     
    This is the core issue. People living around Poles have known this for centuries. Poles talk big, behave emotionally, and when consequences hit, they want others to die on their behalf. And when people sacrifice their lives for Poles, there is zero gratitude. Instead Poles poetically blab about 'rapes and basements' totally ignoring the actual reality that Russians saved their very existence and behaved quite well even after WWII (it was the Polish communists that did most damage - there were 3 million members of the Communist party in Poland in 1980). You bizarrely exaggerate the 'oppression' and the role outsiders played in it. One more time: Germans literally murdered 20% of Polish population, and were going to get rid of the rest. If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland, nobody else would. You refuse to address that point, why?

    "Today’s Europeans largely reflect Czecho-Slovak mentality of that time

    Is it something to be proud of?"

     

    I don't know, maybe not. I was simply describing today's EU reality. But if we as Europeans want to change that mentality, let's start by understanding the historical truths. Lying, mythologizing, and hating each other is not helpful. The 'enemy' is not in the east, Russians are not about to take over our cities, far from it. (Save us the belly-aching about Crimea or Donetsk, those have been Russian speaking for centuries...and when Nato by force took over Kosovo from Serbia, Poland was ok with it - so don't be a hypocrite). The gradual replacement of all of our cultures and of us as nations is the real threat.

    Is that what happened? So I guess in 1939 Poland decided to give its lands away. This is rich, your ability to twist meaning of words…

    Fighting back isn’t giving one’s land away. The Czechs gave theirs away.

    Poland never offered an ‘alliance’, that is a lie.

    It didn’t get that far. Wanting an alliance and offering it are two different things. Poland was concenred about both Gerany and the USSR. The conflict with Czechoslovakia was not helpful. Polish-populated Tesin was a sticking point.

    Tesin district was split in 1918, so your numbers are not accurate – the part that Poland grabbed after Munich had Czech and Silesian majority. You mix Silesians with Poles, Ostrava today is full of Silesians (they have a Silesian university) and they speak Czech.

    70 years of Czechification means they now speak Czech. I’ve visited Silesian Poland and know Silesian Poles. They are one people.

    Poles talk big, behave emotionally, and when consequences hit, they want others to die on their behalf.

    So Poles didn’t die on anyone’s behalf? Really?

    totally ignoring the actual reality that Russians saved their very existence

    Yes, the rapist freed the victim from the serial killer who had attacked him,and brutalized (buit did not kill) the victim afterwards, for many years. So much ot be grateful for.

    it was the Polish communists that did most damage – there were 3 million members of the Communist party in Poland in 1980

    Uh huh. and who istalled them? And how long would this have lasted without Soviet tanks? A week? A month?

    Germans literally murdered 20% of Polish population, and were going to get rid of the rest. If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland

    One more time: Soviets (it was not just Russians) did not sacrifice anybody to save Poland. They sacrifced because Germany attacked them, and they had to get through Poland to conquer Germany. They did not liberate Poland along the way, but enslaved it. The fact the slavery is not as bad as extinction doesn’t mean Poles should be grateful for their slavery.

    If Russians did not sacrifice half a million soldiers to save Poland, nobody else would

    Again you lie about “Russians.” It was more than Russians.

    Soviets didn’t sacrifice anybody to save Poland, they lost lives to defeat Germany, after Germany had attacked them first. Who knows – maybe if Poles had behaved as Czechs, given up without a fight and served the new masters more or less peacefully withot causing a lot of trouble, it would have been just enough for the Germans to win. Good thng for the world that not everyone was like the Czechs.

    If Soviets had stopped at the Polish border, the Western allies would have eventually reached Berlin and Poland would have had a true liberation after the German collapse, rather than reoccupation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "I suspect most Poles wouldn’t mind of the Soviets had stopped at the Polish border. The Western allies would have eventually taken Berlin, and Poland would then have been actually liberated, rather than occupied by someone else."
     
    I give you some credit for finally addressing this point. But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border, Western allies and Poles didn't have the strength to defeat Germany. German armies in the east were still extremely strong in the summer of 1944. Without Soviet Union in the war, Germany would easily dominate the weak allied forces who were reluctant to have casualties.

    The two possible scenarios would be:
    - Germany and West negotiating an orderly end to WWII with Germany almost certainly keeping control of Poland and Nazis staying in charge (or a quasi-Nazi military substitute).
    - A prolonged war of attrition with Germany eventually 'surrendering' but with much better terms. Again, Poland would had stayed occupied for years and the massacring of Poles would continue.

    West simply had no strength - or a desire - to sacrifice half a million soldiers to liberate Poland. And Poles, as you admit, were 'spent' by 1944.

    Those were the options. In either case Poles were doomed. And how many Anglos ever died for Poland?

    Your dismissal of the Russian enormous sacrifice is very ugly. After losing half a million soldiers and being attacked repeatedly from the Polish territory they had a right to be 'occupying' it after WWII.

    But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border

    By the time the Soviets got to the Polish border in mid July 1944 the Germans were sufficiently ground down (the Soviets had crushed them in Operation Bagration in June-July that year) that the Western allies would have eventually won:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration#Aftermath

    Not before, but after the Western Allies had the strength to defeat Germany.

    Obviously the Soviets would have been foolish not to keep going and take Berlin, rather then let the Western Allies grab it. But don’t pretend that the Soviets were marching west in order to liberate Poland or that those Soviet casualties were for the sake of liberating Poland. It was all about crushing the Germans and taking Berlin. Enslaving Poland was a consequence of this.

    By the time the Western allies defeated Germany Poland would either be able to liberate itself (how many Polish troops in Poland once Berlin is besieged?) or liberation would be a demand by the Western allies – remember Polish participation among Western allies throughout World War II (10% of pilots in Battle of Britain were Poles). West would have much more leverage over defeated Germans than over Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You certainly posses the ability to fantasise and dream about what 'could had been'. Very Polish, actually. The large Polish resistance that would 'defeat the Germans', the casualty-averse Anglos that would somehow defeat German armies on their own. Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944? Two or three times more than Anglos had on the continent - and the willingness of US-UK to have large casualties was close to nil.

    Dream on. There was no realistic way for what you describe to happen - as with so many Polish hare-brained schemes it would be another disaster.

    I use Russian-Soviet interchangeable, sorry about it. But you know what I mean, after all today's nationalist Poles do the same thing.

    Tesin in 1938 was not 'after 75 years of Czech assimilation' - that's nonsense. I know plenty of people who identify as Silesian (Slezak in Czech) and have always spoken Czech. This is a regional identity and Czech Republic has always contained a province of Moravian Silesia (check the history of Silesia, it was divided, fought over and multi-ethnic). What Poland did in 1938 was inexcusable and stupid.

    The Polish experience with communism had a very substantial domestic component, those 3 million Polish communists were real. Would they rule without Soviet help? Probably not, but they would be there. Your attempt to blame all bad things that happen in Poland between 1945-89 only on Soviets is ahistorical. It wasn't like that - there was a lot of domestic sh..t that all eastern European countries had on their own.

    On a more relevant note: do you think the biggest threat to today's Poland is Russia? do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart? and, most important, do you think that anyone in the West gives a rat's ass about how many Poles would get killed? when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Beckow says:
    @AP

    But what you say is a complete fantasy. Western allies could barely get themselves across the Ardennes, the only reason they were able to move eastward at all was that large portions of German armies were tripping over themselves to surrender to them instead of to the Russians. If Russians simply stopped on the Polish border
     
    By the time the Soviets got to the Polish border in mid July 1944 the Germans were sufficiently ground down (the Soviets had crushed them in Operation Bagration in June-July that year) that the Western allies would have eventually won:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration#Aftermath

    Not before, but after the Western Allies had the strength to defeat Germany.

    Obviously the Soviets would have been foolish not to keep going and take Berlin, rather then let the Western Allies grab it. But don't pretend that the Soviets were marching west in order to liberate Poland or that those Soviet casualties were for the sake of liberating Poland. It was all about crushing the Germans and taking Berlin. Enslaving Poland was a consequence of this.

    By the time the Western allies defeated Germany Poland would either be able to liberate itself (how many Polish troops in Poland once Berlin is besieged?) or liberation would be a demand by the Western allies - remember Polish participation among Western allies throughout World War II (10% of pilots in Battle of Britain were Poles). West would have much more leverage over defeated Germans than over Stalin.

    You certainly posses the ability to fantasise and dream about what ‘could had been’. Very Polish, actually. The large Polish resistance that would ‘defeat the Germans’, the casualty-averse Anglos that would somehow defeat German armies on their own. Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944? Two or three times more than Anglos had on the continent – and the willingness of US-UK to have large casualties was close to nil.

    Dream on. There was no realistic way for what you describe to happen – as with so many Polish hare-brained schemes it would be another disaster.

    I use Russian-Soviet interchangeable, sorry about it. But you know what I mean, after all today’s nationalist Poles do the same thing.

    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense. I know plenty of people who identify as Silesian (Slezak in Czech) and have always spoken Czech. This is a regional identity and Czech Republic has always contained a province of Moravian Silesia (check the history of Silesia, it was divided, fought over and multi-ethnic). What Poland did in 1938 was inexcusable and stupid.

    The Polish experience with communism had a very substantial domestic component, those 3 million Polish communists were real. Would they rule without Soviet help? Probably not, but they would be there. Your attempt to blame all bad things that happen in Poland between 1945-89 only on Soviets is ahistorical. It wasn’t like that – there was a lot of domestic sh..t that all eastern European countries had on their own.

    On a more relevant note: do you think the biggest threat to today’s Poland is Russia? do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart? and, most important, do you think that anyone in the West gives a rat’s ass about how many Poles would get killed? when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944?
     
    After or before Bagration?

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.


    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense.
     
    The Czech speaking is current. You wrote Ostrava today.

    do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart
     
    Ass opposed to preemptive capitulation?

    when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter
     
    You mean - servile? Hopefully never. They are defying EU now, after all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You certainly posses the ability to fantasise and dream about what 'could had been'. Very Polish, actually. The large Polish resistance that would 'defeat the Germans', the casualty-averse Anglos that would somehow defeat German armies on their own. Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944? Two or three times more than Anglos had on the continent - and the willingness of US-UK to have large casualties was close to nil.

    Dream on. There was no realistic way for what you describe to happen - as with so many Polish hare-brained schemes it would be another disaster.

    I use Russian-Soviet interchangeable, sorry about it. But you know what I mean, after all today's nationalist Poles do the same thing.

    Tesin in 1938 was not 'after 75 years of Czech assimilation' - that's nonsense. I know plenty of people who identify as Silesian (Slezak in Czech) and have always spoken Czech. This is a regional identity and Czech Republic has always contained a province of Moravian Silesia (check the history of Silesia, it was divided, fought over and multi-ethnic). What Poland did in 1938 was inexcusable and stupid.

    The Polish experience with communism had a very substantial domestic component, those 3 million Polish communists were real. Would they rule without Soviet help? Probably not, but they would be there. Your attempt to blame all bad things that happen in Poland between 1945-89 only on Soviets is ahistorical. It wasn't like that - there was a lot of domestic sh..t that all eastern European countries had on their own.

    On a more relevant note: do you think the biggest threat to today's Poland is Russia? do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart? and, most important, do you think that anyone in the West gives a rat's ass about how many Poles would get killed? when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter?

    Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944?

    After or before Bagration?

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.

    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense.

    The Czech speaking is current. You wrote Ostrava today.

    do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart

    Ass opposed to preemptive capitulation?

    when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter

    You mean – servile? Hopefully never. They are defying EU now, after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "After or before Bagration?"

     

    German casualties in Bagration were at most half a million, so it really doesn't matter - they had around 6 million well-armed soldiers. (Food for thought: Normandy invasion that is so endlessly celebrated in the West was 1/4 the size of Bagration Soviet operation that was taking place simultaneously in the east.)

    "Germany would have been nuked into submission"
     
    Would it? Anglos don't 'nuke' their Germanic cousins - I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.

    In any case, any 'nuking' would not happen until summer '45 - enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles. And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.


    "preemptive capitulation?"
     
    Capitulate to whom? To what? Are you unhinged? You talk about 'servility' a lot without understanding that the brown-nosing Polish intellectuals define modern servility. Tusk is a Pole, right? Russians aren't coming to Poland, or to Czech Republic. Moroccans and Nigerians might. You can march and shout all you want (admirable), EU has the final word. They will scare you with 'bad Russians', and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine. But in the case of Poles, they are scaring themselves.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.
     
    Not sure this would have worked.

    From a comment I wrote a few years ago:

    I disagree. It would not have been a game-changer until there were many more of them, and for that you’d have had to wait until the early 1950s. Their numbers and production levels were very limited up until then.

    In the meantime, sure, they could have well destroyed the cores of a dozen or so German cities, perhaps tripling or quintupling Germany’s 600K civilian bombing casualties, but there were nowhere near enough of them to substantially dent German military power. Also note that the Soviet Union developed the nuclear bomb by 1949, and it had far less in the way of technical resources than Germany. With a quiet Eastern Front, Germany could have devoted more resources to this enterprise than it did, probably gotten there by 1947-48, and would have had a great delivery system ready to go in the form of their advanced rocket technology.

    Ballistic missiles are a much more effective method of delivering nuclear payloads than flying bombers over areas infested with AA guns and Me 262s (note that air defense would have been much stronger in Germany had it not been pouring so many resources into the Soviet struggle). Despite the initial lag in nuclear stockpiles, it seems likely that in a true nuclear total war, Germany would eventually ended up firing and landing many more nukes than the Western Allies, either forcing the UK to the peace table or wrecking all its major cities and airports making hosting an invasion unfeasible anyway.
    , @ussr andy
    >defying the EU

    "we won't take your ∞ Muslims, Germany, 1/10th, tops"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. melanf says:
    @AP
    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.

    School in Rivne:

    http://culture-rivne.com.ua/img/upload-files/facilities/gallery/IMG_5598.jpg

    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.

    Common European rule – the closer to the North, the more blondes.
    Ukrainians in the North of Ukraine more blonde than in the South. Belarusians are even more blonde than Northern Ukrainians. Russian in the South of Russia, same as Ukrainians. Russian in the North of Russia is extremely blonde (most blonde people in the world, together with Finns and Scandinavians). In result the average Russian is much more blonde than the Ukrainians

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Looks right. Russians along the Volga are darker than northern Ukrainians, who are darker than Russians from Novgorod. Poland looks oddly dark on that map, however. What is the source?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944?
     
    After or before Bagration?

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.


    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense.
     
    The Czech speaking is current. You wrote Ostrava today.

    do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart
     
    Ass opposed to preemptive capitulation?

    when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter
     
    You mean - servile? Hopefully never. They are defying EU now, after all.

    “After or before Bagration?”

    German casualties in Bagration were at most half a million, so it really doesn’t matter – they had around 6 million well-armed soldiers. (Food for thought: Normandy invasion that is so endlessly celebrated in the West was 1/4 the size of Bagration Soviet operation that was taking place simultaneously in the east.)

    “Germany would have been nuked into submission”

    Would it? Anglos don’t ‘nuke’ their Germanic cousins – I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.

    In any case, any ‘nuking’ would not happen until summer ’45 – enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles. And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.

    “preemptive capitulation?”

    Capitulate to whom? To what? Are you unhinged? You talk about ‘servility’ a lot without understanding that the brown-nosing Polish intellectuals define modern servility. Tusk is a Pole, right? Russians aren’t coming to Poland, or to Czech Republic. Moroccans and Nigerians might. You can march and shout all you want (admirable), EU has the final word. They will scare you with ‘bad Russians’, and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine. But in the case of Poles, they are scaring themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “Germany would have been nuked into submission”

    Would it? Anglos don’t ‘nuke’ their Germanic cousins – I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.
     
    Churchill hated Germany and America's Jews did also.

    The Western allies had been firebombing German civilians mercilessly. They would often avoid industrial areas and destroy residential ones. My grandmother once witnesed an allied plane flying so close she could see the silhouette of the pilot; he was strafing fleeing people (I think they called it "turkey shooting"). America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.

    So yes, Germany would have been nuked. And Poland would have been much better off.

    In any case, any ‘nuking’ would not happen until summer ’45 – enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles.
     
    Doubtful. A lot of Polish casualties came durng the beginning of the war while fighting was going on (Gemans took zero precautions with Polish civilians) and during operations such as the Warsaw Uprising (200,000 civilians murdered in direct response). Another year under the Nazis would have meant a few hundreds of thousands of additonal Polish deaths due to ongoing resistence activity by Poles - but then Soviets killed a substantial fraction of that figure themselves, and many Polish civilian deaths occurred during the process of Soviets and Germans battling across Polish territory. So it is doubtful that there would have been a large number of additional Polish casualties had Germany capitulated in late 1945 to the West, without Soviets streaming throgh Poland to get to Berlin.

    But 40 years of Soviet slavery and degradation would have been avoided.

    And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.
     
    Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    “preemptive capitulation?”

    Capitulate to whom?
     
    Germans and/or Russians. Whoever is strongest. I suspect one reason why Ukrainians irritate you is because they are so very un-Czech like, and in being this, they highlight Czech servility to the stronger neighbor and perhaps remind you of something uncomfortalbe. If Czechs inhabited the territory of Ukraine, they would have gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves to the stronger Russians. They either never would have declared independence or would have sucked up to Russia right after Russia got its act together after 2000, doing everything that was asked. Unless NATO built massive bases on the Ukrainian border. Then the Czech thing to do would be to bow to NATO. Or suffer an existential crisis - whom to serve?

    They will scare you with ‘bad Russians’, and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine
     
    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I am teasing. The Czechs are in a much harder position than are Poles, or Ukrainians. There are fewer of them. They will be a pawn regardless, so might as well live as well as possible. Their behavior is understandable and forgivable. Of course the Finns and Balts and Galicians and Chechens still fought the much-larger Soviets or Russians...

    Your argument to the other eastern European peoples is - "We are smart to know we are pawns. You think you are not pawns, but you are, so if you are smart like us you will surrender like we do and live better as we do. How dare you think it is otherswise, your struggle is useless."

    As China continues to grow, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "After or before Bagration?"

     

    German casualties in Bagration were at most half a million, so it really doesn't matter - they had around 6 million well-armed soldiers. (Food for thought: Normandy invasion that is so endlessly celebrated in the West was 1/4 the size of Bagration Soviet operation that was taking place simultaneously in the east.)

    "Germany would have been nuked into submission"
     
    Would it? Anglos don't 'nuke' their Germanic cousins - I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.

    In any case, any 'nuking' would not happen until summer '45 - enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles. And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.


    "preemptive capitulation?"
     
    Capitulate to whom? To what? Are you unhinged? You talk about 'servility' a lot without understanding that the brown-nosing Polish intellectuals define modern servility. Tusk is a Pole, right? Russians aren't coming to Poland, or to Czech Republic. Moroccans and Nigerians might. You can march and shout all you want (admirable), EU has the final word. They will scare you with 'bad Russians', and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine. But in the case of Poles, they are scaring themselves.

    “Germany would have been nuked into submission”

    Would it? Anglos don’t ‘nuke’ their Germanic cousins – I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.

    Churchill hated Germany and America’s Jews did also.

    The Western allies had been firebombing German civilians mercilessly. They would often avoid industrial areas and destroy residential ones. My grandmother once witnesed an allied plane flying so close she could see the silhouette of the pilot; he was strafing fleeing people (I think they called it “turkey shooting”). America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.

    So yes, Germany would have been nuked. And Poland would have been much better off.

    In any case, any ‘nuking’ would not happen until summer ’45 – enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles.

    Doubtful. A lot of Polish casualties came durng the beginning of the war while fighting was going on (Gemans took zero precautions with Polish civilians) and during operations such as the Warsaw Uprising (200,000 civilians murdered in direct response). Another year under the Nazis would have meant a few hundreds of thousands of additonal Polish deaths due to ongoing resistence activity by Poles – but then Soviets killed a substantial fraction of that figure themselves, and many Polish civilian deaths occurred during the process of Soviets and Germans battling across Polish territory. So it is doubtful that there would have been a large number of additional Polish casualties had Germany capitulated in late 1945 to the West, without Soviets streaming throgh Poland to get to Berlin.

    But 40 years of Soviet slavery and degradation would have been avoided.

    And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.

    Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    “preemptive capitulation?”

    Capitulate to whom?

    Germans and/or Russians. Whoever is strongest. I suspect one reason why Ukrainians irritate you is because they are so very un-Czech like, and in being this, they highlight Czech servility to the stronger neighbor and perhaps remind you of something uncomfortalbe. If Czechs inhabited the territory of Ukraine, they would have gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves to the stronger Russians. They either never would have declared independence or would have sucked up to Russia right after Russia got its act together after 2000, doing everything that was asked. Unless NATO built massive bases on the Ukrainian border. Then the Czech thing to do would be to bow to NATO. Or suffer an existential crisis – whom to serve?

    They will scare you with ‘bad Russians’, and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine

    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I am teasing. The Czechs are in a much harder position than are Poles, or Ukrainians. There are fewer of them. They will be a pawn regardless, so might as well live as well as possible. Their behavior is understandable and forgivable. Of course the Finns and Balts and Galicians and Chechens still fought the much-larger Soviets or Russians…

    Your argument to the other eastern European peoples is – “We are smart to know we are pawns. You think you are not pawns, but you are, so if you are smart like us you will surrender like we do and live better as we do. How dare you think it is otherswise, your struggle is useless.”

    As China continues to grow, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.
     
    I generally agree regarding your views about Poland/the Soviet Union, but this is somewhat inaccurate and too high by a factor of two to four.
    I'm also not sure if Churchill hated Germany per se (even though I take a dim view of some of his actions in both world war, with the blockade in WW1 and area bombing in WW2)...in any case he had plans drawn up which included the possible use of Wehrmacht soldiers in a war against the Soviet Union:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
    Unlike the Americans, the British also didn't turn over regular German pows to the Soviets.
    , @Beckow

    "Churchill hated Germany and America’s Jews did also"
     
    They were not in charge, people like Eisenhower were. I think Karlin's response debunks your dream better than anyone else could.

    "Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?
     
    They didn't control anything by then. That's the whole point - by August '45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don't fight against hopeless odds. I am not a Czech, I am a Slovak, we have had our issues with the Czech tendency to 'accommodate', but one cannot argue with results - they have been very successful so far. They are doing something right. You will never see Czechs mindlessly offending others for no reason - or plant themselves with a huge sign 'Shoot here' in front of nuclear missiles. They are rational.


    "If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?
     
    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don't 'convert' to anything. There are fewer migrants in Czech R. than in Poland or Hungary - and almost none in Slovakia. But the noise level is lower.

    Poland is very volatile - socialists to Tusk to P&S and god knows what next - one can easily imagine Poland giving in. Maybe to piss off Russians - Chechens were welcomed in large numbers into Poland, what do you think they worship? Or to show the total devotion to their betters in the West. Imagine some Hillary Clinton-like character in charge in Washington coming to bless the Poles - and then asking 'help the West' by admitting half a million refugees displaced because 'Putin did it'. Boom, I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West. That is never going to happen to Czechs, they are smarter. Money and foreign bribes also go further in Warsaw - and we are back to the character issue.


    "what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?"

     

    I don't want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do? That might be one of the consequences of this mad 'let's have a war with Russia' mentality.When two fight each other, the third one often wins. Russia has the nukes, so maybe this is something they can handle if they want to, but they might not care. If you think it is good for EU or Poland for Chinese to spread into Euroasia, you are really emotionally disturbed. But I can see how hatred of anything Russian would do it. Too bad for all of us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. AP says:
    @melanf

    Northern Ukrainians tend to be blond.
     
    Common European rule - the closer to the North, the more blondes.
    Ukrainians in the North of Ukraine more blonde than in the South. Belarusians are even more blonde than Northern Ukrainians. Russian in the South of Russia, same as Ukrainians. Russian in the North of Russia is extremely blonde (most blonde people in the world, together with Finns and Scandinavians). In result the average Russian is much more blonde than the Ukrainians
    https://ii.yuki.la/2/a2/4bd357c136ae287bea67d1f575c09ee68e3c696724727c723858cb8d02e8da22.png

    Looks right. Russians along the Volga are darker than northern Ukrainians, who are darker than Russians from Novgorod. Poland looks oddly dark on that map, however. What is the source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    A few years ago on specialized forums discussed the research that formed the basis of maps. But now I can't find the link.

    Poland looks oddly dark on that map, however
     
    There are other such studies/maps. Poland on these maps looks more blonde.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @AP

    Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944?
     
    After or before Bagration?

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.


    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense.
     
    The Czech speaking is current. You wrote Ostrava today.

    do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart
     
    Ass opposed to preemptive capitulation?

    when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter
     
    You mean - servile? Hopefully never. They are defying EU now, after all.

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.

    Not sure this would have worked.

    From a comment I wrote a few years ago:

    I disagree. It would not have been a game-changer until there were many more of them, and for that you’d have had to wait until the early 1950s. Their numbers and production levels were very limited up until then.

    In the meantime, sure, they could have well destroyed the cores of a dozen or so German cities, perhaps tripling or quintupling Germany’s 600K civilian bombing casualties, but there were nowhere near enough of them to substantially dent German military power. Also note that the Soviet Union developed the nuclear bomb by 1949, and it had far less in the way of technical resources than Germany. With a quiet Eastern Front, Germany could have devoted more resources to this enterprise than it did, probably gotten there by 1947-48, and would have had a great delivery system ready to go in the form of their advanced rocket technology.

    Ballistic missiles are a much more effective method of delivering nuclear payloads than flying bombers over areas infested with AA guns and Me 262s (note that air defense would have been much stronger in Germany had it not been pouring so many resources into the Soviet struggle). Despite the initial lag in nuclear stockpiles, it seems likely that in a true nuclear total war, Germany would eventually ended up firing and landing many more nukes than the Western Allies, either forcing the UK to the peace table or wrecking all its major cities and airports making hosting an invasion unfeasible anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I'm not sure we are on the same page here. The hypothetical scenario we are discussing is - if the USSR stopped the war in July-August 1944, when it reached the Polish border. By this time much of the German military had been spent, the allies were able to bomb Germany fairly easily, and Germany no longer had the resources to pursue large scale projects (like nukes). A half dozen nuke strikes would have been enough for a surrender or overthrow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @AP

    “Germany would have been nuked into submission”

    Would it? Anglos don’t ‘nuke’ their Germanic cousins – I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.
     
    Churchill hated Germany and America's Jews did also.

    The Western allies had been firebombing German civilians mercilessly. They would often avoid industrial areas and destroy residential ones. My grandmother once witnesed an allied plane flying so close she could see the silhouette of the pilot; he was strafing fleeing people (I think they called it "turkey shooting"). America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.

    So yes, Germany would have been nuked. And Poland would have been much better off.

    In any case, any ‘nuking’ would not happen until summer ’45 – enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles.
     
    Doubtful. A lot of Polish casualties came durng the beginning of the war while fighting was going on (Gemans took zero precautions with Polish civilians) and during operations such as the Warsaw Uprising (200,000 civilians murdered in direct response). Another year under the Nazis would have meant a few hundreds of thousands of additonal Polish deaths due to ongoing resistence activity by Poles - but then Soviets killed a substantial fraction of that figure themselves, and many Polish civilian deaths occurred during the process of Soviets and Germans battling across Polish territory. So it is doubtful that there would have been a large number of additional Polish casualties had Germany capitulated in late 1945 to the West, without Soviets streaming throgh Poland to get to Berlin.

    But 40 years of Soviet slavery and degradation would have been avoided.

    And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.
     
    Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    “preemptive capitulation?”

    Capitulate to whom?
     
    Germans and/or Russians. Whoever is strongest. I suspect one reason why Ukrainians irritate you is because they are so very un-Czech like, and in being this, they highlight Czech servility to the stronger neighbor and perhaps remind you of something uncomfortalbe. If Czechs inhabited the territory of Ukraine, they would have gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves to the stronger Russians. They either never would have declared independence or would have sucked up to Russia right after Russia got its act together after 2000, doing everything that was asked. Unless NATO built massive bases on the Ukrainian border. Then the Czech thing to do would be to bow to NATO. Or suffer an existential crisis - whom to serve?

    They will scare you with ‘bad Russians’, and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine
     
    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I am teasing. The Czechs are in a much harder position than are Poles, or Ukrainians. There are fewer of them. They will be a pawn regardless, so might as well live as well as possible. Their behavior is understandable and forgivable. Of course the Finns and Balts and Galicians and Chechens still fought the much-larger Soviets or Russians...

    Your argument to the other eastern European peoples is - "We are smart to know we are pawns. You think you are not pawns, but you are, so if you are smart like us you will surrender like we do and live better as we do. How dare you think it is otherswise, your struggle is useless."

    As China continues to grow, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?

    America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.

    I generally agree regarding your views about Poland/the Soviet Union, but this is somewhat inaccurate and too high by a factor of two to four.
    I’m also not sure if Churchill hated Germany per se (even though I take a dim view of some of his actions in both world war, with the blockade in WW1 and area bombing in WW2)…in any case he had plans drawn up which included the possible use of Wehrmacht soldiers in a war against the Soviet Union:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

    Unlike the Americans, the British also didn’t turn over regular German pows to the Soviets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are right. The consensus figure of Germans killed by terror bombing was about 600,000. That's slightly more than the number of Japanese civilians killed - which means the Western allies were as happy to slaughter German civilians as they were to slaughter Japanese ones. Germans would not have been spared nukes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Beckow says:
    @AP

    “Germany would have been nuked into submission”

    Would it? Anglos don’t ‘nuke’ their Germanic cousins – I strongly doubt it would ever be approved. US has a huge German-origin population. It seems unlikely.
     
    Churchill hated Germany and America's Jews did also.

    The Western allies had been firebombing German civilians mercilessly. They would often avoid industrial areas and destroy residential ones. My grandmother once witnesed an allied plane flying so close she could see the silhouette of the pilot; he was strafing fleeing people (I think they called it "turkey shooting"). America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.

    So yes, Germany would have been nuked. And Poland would have been much better off.

    In any case, any ‘nuking’ would not happen until summer ’45 – enough time for Germany to eliminate another 20% of the remaining Poles.
     
    Doubtful. A lot of Polish casualties came durng the beginning of the war while fighting was going on (Gemans took zero precautions with Polish civilians) and during operations such as the Warsaw Uprising (200,000 civilians murdered in direct response). Another year under the Nazis would have meant a few hundreds of thousands of additonal Polish deaths due to ongoing resistence activity by Poles - but then Soviets killed a substantial fraction of that figure themselves, and many Polish civilian deaths occurred during the process of Soviets and Germans battling across Polish territory. So it is doubtful that there would have been a large number of additional Polish casualties had Germany capitulated in late 1945 to the West, without Soviets streaming throgh Poland to get to Berlin.

    But 40 years of Soviet slavery and degradation would have been avoided.

    And just imagine the German anger and revenge (on the Poles) if a nuke was dropped on a German city.
     
    Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    “preemptive capitulation?”

    Capitulate to whom?
     
    Germans and/or Russians. Whoever is strongest. I suspect one reason why Ukrainians irritate you is because they are so very un-Czech like, and in being this, they highlight Czech servility to the stronger neighbor and perhaps remind you of something uncomfortalbe. If Czechs inhabited the territory of Ukraine, they would have gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves to the stronger Russians. They either never would have declared independence or would have sucked up to Russia right after Russia got its act together after 2000, doing everything that was asked. Unless NATO built massive bases on the Ukrainian border. Then the Czech thing to do would be to bow to NATO. Or suffer an existential crisis - whom to serve?

    They will scare you with ‘bad Russians’, and next you know Warsaw looks like Karachi without sunshine
     
    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I am teasing. The Czechs are in a much harder position than are Poles, or Ukrainians. There are fewer of them. They will be a pawn regardless, so might as well live as well as possible. Their behavior is understandable and forgivable. Of course the Finns and Balts and Galicians and Chechens still fought the much-larger Soviets or Russians...

    Your argument to the other eastern European peoples is - "We are smart to know we are pawns. You think you are not pawns, but you are, so if you are smart like us you will surrender like we do and live better as we do. How dare you think it is otherswise, your struggle is useless."

    As China continues to grow, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?

    “Churchill hated Germany and America’s Jews did also”

    They were not in charge, people like Eisenhower were. I think Karlin’s response debunks your dream better than anyone else could.

    “Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    They didn’t control anything by then. That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don’t fight against hopeless odds. I am not a Czech, I am a Slovak, we have had our issues with the Czech tendency to ‘accommodate’, but one cannot argue with results – they have been very successful so far. They are doing something right. You will never see Czechs mindlessly offending others for no reason – or plant themselves with a huge sign ‘Shoot here’ in front of nuclear missiles. They are rational.

    “If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don’t ‘convert’ to anything. There are fewer migrants in Czech R. than in Poland or Hungary – and almost none in Slovakia. But the noise level is lower.

    Poland is very volatile - socialists to Tusk to P&S and god knows what next – one can easily imagine Poland giving in. Maybe to piss off Russians – Chechens were welcomed in large numbers into Poland, what do you think they worship? Or to show the total devotion to their betters in the West. Imagine some Hillary Clinton-like character in charge in Washington coming to bless the Poles – and then asking ‘help the West’ by admitting half a million refugees displaced because ‘Putin did it‘. Boom, I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West. That is never going to happen to Czechs, they are smarter. Money and foreign bribes also go further in Warsaw – and we are back to the character issue.

    “what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?”

    I don’t want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do? That might be one of the consequences of this mad ‘let’s have a war with Russia’ mentality.When two fight each other, the third one often wins. Russia has the nukes, so maybe this is something they can handle if they want to, but they might not care. If you think it is good for EU or Poland for Chinese to spread into Euroasia, you are really emotionally disturbed. But I can see how hatred of anything Russian would do it. Too bad for all of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.
     
    That's wrong, the Japanese still controlled huge areas in China, Korea and Southeast Asia in August 1945, it actually took weeks after their surrender for Allied troops to arrive in Vietnam, Indonesia etc.
    (not that it matters for the larger discussion, but I'm in nitpicking mode right now, sorry).
    , @AP

    “Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    They didn’t control anything by then. That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.
     
    As German-reader pointed out, the Japanese controlled very large areas in Asia.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don’t fight against hopeless odds.
     
    Translation: they do what they are told but they grumble about it. They convert to Catholicism but don't take it seriously. They become independent when victorious Wilson wanted them to but give away their independence without a fight. They do what the Commies tell them - more so than did the Poles who were shocked by Czech commie-compliance when they visited Czechoslovakia in the 1980s - but they quietly complain.

    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don’t ‘convert’ to anything.
     
    If Germany became a Caliphate that promised to harm infidels, as per your description, Czechs would quickly convert in order to save themselves from any harm, and supply the Jihad as asked, but quietly sip beer once in a while when no one is watching. Poles meanwhile would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people.

    I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West.
     
    Poland's f.u. to the EU proves that it is not motivated by eagerness to please "the West."

    “what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?”

    I don’t want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do?
     
    My question was - if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now - would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship with them, so they can live better?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Beckow

    "Churchill hated Germany and America’s Jews did also"
     
    They were not in charge, people like Eisenhower were. I think Karlin's response debunks your dream better than anyone else could.

    "Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?
     
    They didn't control anything by then. That's the whole point - by August '45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don't fight against hopeless odds. I am not a Czech, I am a Slovak, we have had our issues with the Czech tendency to 'accommodate', but one cannot argue with results - they have been very successful so far. They are doing something right. You will never see Czechs mindlessly offending others for no reason - or plant themselves with a huge sign 'Shoot here' in front of nuclear missiles. They are rational.


    "If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?
     
    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don't 'convert' to anything. There are fewer migrants in Czech R. than in Poland or Hungary - and almost none in Slovakia. But the noise level is lower.

    Poland is very volatile - socialists to Tusk to P&S and god knows what next - one can easily imagine Poland giving in. Maybe to piss off Russians - Chechens were welcomed in large numbers into Poland, what do you think they worship? Or to show the total devotion to their betters in the West. Imagine some Hillary Clinton-like character in charge in Washington coming to bless the Poles - and then asking 'help the West' by admitting half a million refugees displaced because 'Putin did it'. Boom, I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West. That is never going to happen to Czechs, they are smarter. Money and foreign bribes also go further in Warsaw - and we are back to the character issue.


    "what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?"

     

    I don't want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do? That might be one of the consequences of this mad 'let's have a war with Russia' mentality.When two fight each other, the third one often wins. Russia has the nukes, so maybe this is something they can handle if they want to, but they might not care. If you think it is good for EU or Poland for Chinese to spread into Euroasia, you are really emotionally disturbed. But I can see how hatred of anything Russian would do it. Too bad for all of us.

    That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    That’s wrong, the Japanese still controlled huge areas in China, Korea and Southeast Asia in August 1945, it actually took weeks after their surrender for Allied troops to arrive in Vietnam, Indonesia etc.
    (not that it matters for the larger discussion, but I’m in nitpicking mode right now, sorry).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Czechs and Slovaks are more tucked away, they don’t need to fear Russia as much as Poland.

    Beckow, your condescending attitude towards Poles and Ukies is silly. Slovakia is not as developed as Czechia and generally is nothing to write home about. Just slightly above those countries to the east, but generally nothing special.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. polskijoe says:

    I think two of you guys talk too much about history.

    My brief comment on that though: i doubt Poland-Czechslovakian alliance would do much, if both the Nazis and Soviets invaded anyway). It would likely mean more killed in those two countries.

    As for the current situation, some Poles have exaggerated fear of Russia.
    They have no intention to invade nato,
    Ukraine was only partial grabbed to make sure all of Ukraine doesnt become proWest and bordering them (on the east), and Crimea (primarely for the military base, and russian solders).

    The biggest threat to Europe mostly foreigners (the mass immigration, and certain nations which want
    Eastern Europe to clash and lose millions in that area).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.
     
    Not sure this would have worked.

    From a comment I wrote a few years ago:

    I disagree. It would not have been a game-changer until there were many more of them, and for that you’d have had to wait until the early 1950s. Their numbers and production levels were very limited up until then.

    In the meantime, sure, they could have well destroyed the cores of a dozen or so German cities, perhaps tripling or quintupling Germany’s 600K civilian bombing casualties, but there were nowhere near enough of them to substantially dent German military power. Also note that the Soviet Union developed the nuclear bomb by 1949, and it had far less in the way of technical resources than Germany. With a quiet Eastern Front, Germany could have devoted more resources to this enterprise than it did, probably gotten there by 1947-48, and would have had a great delivery system ready to go in the form of their advanced rocket technology.

    Ballistic missiles are a much more effective method of delivering nuclear payloads than flying bombers over areas infested with AA guns and Me 262s (note that air defense would have been much stronger in Germany had it not been pouring so many resources into the Soviet struggle). Despite the initial lag in nuclear stockpiles, it seems likely that in a true nuclear total war, Germany would eventually ended up firing and landing many more nukes than the Western Allies, either forcing the UK to the peace table or wrecking all its major cities and airports making hosting an invasion unfeasible anyway.

    I’m not sure we are on the same page here. The hypothetical scenario we are discussing is – if the USSR stopped the war in July-August 1944, when it reached the Polish border. By this time much of the German military had been spent, the allies were able to bomb Germany fairly easily, and Germany no longer had the resources to pursue large scale projects (like nukes). A half dozen nuke strikes would have been enough for a surrender or overthrow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "Churchill hated Germany and America’s Jews did also"
     
    They were not in charge, people like Eisenhower were. I think Karlin's response debunks your dream better than anyone else could.

    "Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?
     
    They didn't control anything by then. That's the whole point - by August '45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don't fight against hopeless odds. I am not a Czech, I am a Slovak, we have had our issues with the Czech tendency to 'accommodate', but one cannot argue with results - they have been very successful so far. They are doing something right. You will never see Czechs mindlessly offending others for no reason - or plant themselves with a huge sign 'Shoot here' in front of nuclear missiles. They are rational.


    "If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?
     
    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don't 'convert' to anything. There are fewer migrants in Czech R. than in Poland or Hungary - and almost none in Slovakia. But the noise level is lower.

    Poland is very volatile - socialists to Tusk to P&S and god knows what next - one can easily imagine Poland giving in. Maybe to piss off Russians - Chechens were welcomed in large numbers into Poland, what do you think they worship? Or to show the total devotion to their betters in the West. Imagine some Hillary Clinton-like character in charge in Washington coming to bless the Poles - and then asking 'help the West' by admitting half a million refugees displaced because 'Putin did it'. Boom, I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West. That is never going to happen to Czechs, they are smarter. Money and foreign bribes also go further in Warsaw - and we are back to the character issue.


    "what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?"

     

    I don't want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do? That might be one of the consequences of this mad 'let's have a war with Russia' mentality.When two fight each other, the third one often wins. Russia has the nukes, so maybe this is something they can handle if they want to, but they might not care. If you think it is good for EU or Poland for Chinese to spread into Euroasia, you are really emotionally disturbed. But I can see how hatred of anything Russian would do it. Too bad for all of us.

    “Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    They didn’t control anything by then. That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.

    As German-reader pointed out, the Japanese controlled very large areas in Asia.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don’t fight against hopeless odds.

    Translation: they do what they are told but they grumble about it. They convert to Catholicism but don’t take it seriously. They become independent when victorious Wilson wanted them to but give away their independence without a fight. They do what the Commies tell them – more so than did the Poles who were shocked by Czech commie-compliance when they visited Czechoslovakia in the 1980s – but they quietly complain.

    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don’t ‘convert’ to anything.

    If Germany became a Caliphate that promised to harm infidels, as per your description, Czechs would quickly convert in order to save themselves from any harm, and supply the Jihad as asked, but quietly sip beer once in a while when no one is watching. Poles meanwhile would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people.

    I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West.

    Poland’s f.u. to the EU proves that it is not motivated by eagerness to please “the West.”

    “what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?”

    I don’t want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do?

    My question was – if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now – would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship with them, so they can live better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    If you really think that 'don't fight against hopeless odds' translates into 'they do what they are told', you might have some hormonal issues. 'Hopeless odds' means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die. Is what you present here a quiet cry for help?

    You have displayed enough mindless chest-beating and bravado to join the Charge of the Light Brigade against machine guns. Good luck, but I hope you a bit more sensible.

    And about the communist era: it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks, not vice-versa. Poles were the second largest components in that 'brotherly' invasion. And in the 1980's Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.


    "Poles would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people"
     
    You don't seem to understand what 'apostate' means - it is a person who abandons his faith, in the case pf Poland presumably a Catholic. Are you suggesting that Poles would fight other Poles? Or that a large number would convert to Islam?

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West. All it would take is a different President in Washington. If Clinton got elected and went to ask Poles to open their borders to migrants to fight the 'evil Putin', how quickly do you think Warsaw elite would line up, salute and comply?


    "if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now – would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship?"
     
    As I mentioned, Russians have nukes, Czechs don't. A bit of a difference, I suspect that they would fight whether I encourage them or not.

    Russia has been forced to turn to China. That might hurt Russia eventually, but who it will really hurt is EU and West in general. Russia has resources - let me repeat that: Russia has resources (minerals, land, energy, water...), so it will always be in demand. They were willing to continue offer those resources to EU and allow EU to export its products to Russia. Pretty good deal overall. Now they are forced to make the same deal with China and Asia. EU is left out, 5-10 years from now, the consequences will be obvious. By then it will be too late. I think it is a lose-lose for Russia and EU. And really bad for Poland since they will be effectively completely barred from the Russian markets (it is coming).

    You see, shooting and fighting, and parading and shouting slogans, only takes you so far. At the end you have to eat and trade and work. As so often before, Poles prefer the symbolic circus to real work.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AP says:
    @German_reader

    America and UK murdered something like 1-2 million German civilians the old fashioned way, with bombs and fire.
     
    I generally agree regarding your views about Poland/the Soviet Union, but this is somewhat inaccurate and too high by a factor of two to four.
    I'm also not sure if Churchill hated Germany per se (even though I take a dim view of some of his actions in both world war, with the blockade in WW1 and area bombing in WW2)...in any case he had plans drawn up which included the possible use of Wehrmacht soldiers in a war against the Soviet Union:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
    Unlike the Americans, the British also didn't turn over regular German pows to the Soviets.

    You are right. The consensus figure of Germans killed by terror bombing was about 600,000. That’s slightly more than the number of Japanese civilians killed – which means the Western allies were as happy to slaughter German civilians as they were to slaughter Japanese ones. Germans would not have been spared nukes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Beckow says:
    @AP

    “Did the Japanese get rougher in areas they still controlled, after Hiroshima?

    They didn’t control anything by then. That’s the whole point – by August ’45 Japan was down to its home territory, so it was safe to nuke them.
     
    As German-reader pointed out, the Japanese controlled very large areas in Asia.

    You mis-read Czechs. They are savvy and quite nationalistic under the surface. But they are smarter about it and don’t fight against hopeless odds.
     
    Translation: they do what they are told but they grumble about it. They convert to Catholicism but don't take it seriously. They become independent when victorious Wilson wanted them to but give away their independence without a fight. They do what the Commies tell them - more so than did the Poles who were shocked by Czech commie-compliance when they visited Czechoslovakia in the 1980s - but they quietly complain.

    If Germany becomes a Muslim Caliphate how soon before the Czechs voluntarily convert to Islam en masse?

    I would say never. Czechs have managed to piss off Habsburg Catholics for 300 years, they generally don’t ‘convert’ to anything.
     
    If Germany became a Caliphate that promised to harm infidels, as per your description, Czechs would quickly convert in order to save themselves from any harm, and supply the Jihad as asked, but quietly sip beer once in a while when no one is watching. Poles meanwhile would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people.

    I can see Poland giving in. They are eager to please the West.
     
    Poland's f.u. to the EU proves that it is not motivated by eagerness to please "the West."

    “what do you want Russia to do vis a vis China?”

    I don’t want to do anything. In general it benefits the white, European, Christian civilisation to control the Siberia resources. But if we part our ways with Russia, and they choose to go with the Chinese, what can we do?
     
    My question was - if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now - would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship with them, so they can live better?

    If you really think that ‘don’t fight against hopeless odds‘ translates into ‘they do what they are told’, you might have some hormonal issues. ‘Hopeless odds’ means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die. Is what you present here a quiet cry for help?

    You have displayed enough mindless chest-beating and bravado to join the Charge of the Light Brigade against machine guns. Good luck, but I hope you a bit more sensible.

    And about the communist era: it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks, not vice-versa. Poles were the second largest components in that ‘brotherly’ invasion. And in the 1980′s Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.

    “Poles would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people”

    You don’t seem to understand what ‘apostate’ means – it is a person who abandons his faith, in the case pf Poland presumably a Catholic. Are you suggesting that Poles would fight other Poles? Or that a large number would convert to Islam?

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West. All it would take is a different President in Washington. If Clinton got elected and went to ask Poles to open their borders to migrants to fight the ‘evil Putin’, how quickly do you think Warsaw elite would line up, salute and comply?

    “if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now – would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship?”

    As I mentioned, Russians have nukes, Czechs don’t. A bit of a difference, I suspect that they would fight whether I encourage them or not.

    Russia has been forced to turn to China. That might hurt Russia eventually, but who it will really hurt is EU and West in general. Russia has resources – let me repeat that: Russia has resources (minerals, land, energy, water…), so it will always be in demand. They were willing to continue offer those resources to EU and allow EU to export its products to Russia. Pretty good deal overall. Now they are forced to make the same deal with China and Asia. EU is left out, 5-10 years from now, the consequences will be obvious. By then it will be too late. I think it is a lose-lose for Russia and EU. And really bad for Poland since they will be effectively completely barred from the Russian markets (it is coming).

    You see, shooting and fighting, and parading and shouting slogans, only takes you so far. At the end you have to eat and trade and work. As so often before, Poles prefer the symbolic circus to real work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    If you really think that ‘don’t fight against hopeless odds‘ translates into ‘they do what they are told’, you might have some hormonal issues. ‘Hopeless odds’ means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die.
     
    So, in your opinion, everyone who was weaker than the Nazis should have just capitulated to them without any fighting. That would have been everybody other than the Soviets. And hell - the Soviets at the beginning in the first year, too. They should have just surrendered after the first few weeks.

    It's good for Czechs - they surrendered without fighting, and dutifully did what they were told, working for the German occupiers (while no doubt grumbling to themselves) while others fought and died. And Czechs reaped the benefits from the actions of those who did not act as Czechs.

    Happened with the fall of Communism, too. Poles did the work, Czechs benefited. It makes sense from a very practical point of view. Nowadays who is loudly demanding EU change its policies? Hungary and Poland. And if they succeed, who will benefit? The quiet, servile Czechs.

    it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks
     
    Czech miscalculation: they thought everyone was liberalizing. But there too, they surrendered without much of a struggle, unlike Hungarians in 1956.

    And in the 1980′s Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.
     
    Sure, Poland was poorer. Czech attitude was interesting: it was wrong to complain about Communism, better to be servile and better fed. From Polish POV - Poles were shocked at how pro-Commie the Czechs were.

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West.
     
    You keep making this claim but you have no evidence. Poles are openly and loudly defying the West's demands to take in Muslim refugees. This is a fact. Your wild speculation that if Hillary asked them to because Russia would hate it, they would, is pure fantasy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. ussr andy says:
    @AP

    Do you realize that Germany still had 6 million well-armed soldiers in summer 1944?
     
    After or before Bagration?

    At any rate, it is irrelevant as Germany would have been nuked intro submission and would have done whatever the Allies wanted it to do.


    Tesin in 1938 was not ‘after 75 years of Czech assimilation’ – that’s nonsense.
     
    The Czech speaking is current. You wrote Ostrava today.

    do you think that acting as a voluntary target in a potential Russia-West war is smart
     
    Ass opposed to preemptive capitulation?

    when are Poles going to grow up and become a bit smarter
     
    You mean - servile? Hopefully never. They are defying EU now, after all.

    >defying the EU

    “we won’t take your ∞ Muslims, Germany, 1/10th, tops”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Are they taking any?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. AP says:
    @ussr andy
    >defying the EU

    "we won't take your ∞ Muslims, Germany, 1/10th, tops"

    Are they taking any?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    whoosh.gif ...

    PS even if they aren't, they won't be able to hold out forever, ditto every other sh*tlib policy. I want to be wrong

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. AP says:
    @Beckow
    If you really think that 'don't fight against hopeless odds' translates into 'they do what they are told', you might have some hormonal issues. 'Hopeless odds' means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die. Is what you present here a quiet cry for help?

    You have displayed enough mindless chest-beating and bravado to join the Charge of the Light Brigade against machine guns. Good luck, but I hope you a bit more sensible.

    And about the communist era: it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks, not vice-versa. Poles were the second largest components in that 'brotherly' invasion. And in the 1980's Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.


    "Poles would engage in a holy war against the apostates and lose a lot of people"
     
    You don't seem to understand what 'apostate' means - it is a person who abandons his faith, in the case pf Poland presumably a Catholic. Are you suggesting that Poles would fight other Poles? Or that a large number would convert to Islam?

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West. All it would take is a different President in Washington. If Clinton got elected and went to ask Poles to open their borders to migrants to fight the 'evil Putin', how quickly do you think Warsaw elite would line up, salute and comply?


    "if China continues to grow and become much more powerful in comparison to Russia as it is now – would you encourage the Russians to accommodate (Czech-like) the Chinese and establish a vassal relationship?"
     
    As I mentioned, Russians have nukes, Czechs don't. A bit of a difference, I suspect that they would fight whether I encourage them or not.

    Russia has been forced to turn to China. That might hurt Russia eventually, but who it will really hurt is EU and West in general. Russia has resources - let me repeat that: Russia has resources (minerals, land, energy, water...), so it will always be in demand. They were willing to continue offer those resources to EU and allow EU to export its products to Russia. Pretty good deal overall. Now they are forced to make the same deal with China and Asia. EU is left out, 5-10 years from now, the consequences will be obvious. By then it will be too late. I think it is a lose-lose for Russia and EU. And really bad for Poland since they will be effectively completely barred from the Russian markets (it is coming).

    You see, shooting and fighting, and parading and shouting slogans, only takes you so far. At the end you have to eat and trade and work. As so often before, Poles prefer the symbolic circus to real work.

    If you really think that ‘don’t fight against hopeless odds‘ translates into ‘they do what they are told’, you might have some hormonal issues. ‘Hopeless odds’ means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die.

    So, in your opinion, everyone who was weaker than the Nazis should have just capitulated to them without any fighting. That would have been everybody other than the Soviets. And hell – the Soviets at the beginning in the first year, too. They should have just surrendered after the first few weeks.

    It’s good for Czechs – they surrendered without fighting, and dutifully did what they were told, working for the German occupiers (while no doubt grumbling to themselves) while others fought and died. And Czechs reaped the benefits from the actions of those who did not act as Czechs.

    Happened with the fall of Communism, too. Poles did the work, Czechs benefited. It makes sense from a very practical point of view. Nowadays who is loudly demanding EU change its policies? Hungary and Poland. And if they succeed, who will benefit? The quiet, servile Czechs.

    it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks

    Czech miscalculation: they thought everyone was liberalizing. But there too, they surrendered without much of a struggle, unlike Hungarians in 1956.

    And in the 1980′s Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.

    Sure, Poland was poorer. Czech attitude was interesting: it was wrong to complain about Communism, better to be servile and better fed. From Polish POV – Poles were shocked at how pro-Commie the Czechs were.

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West.

    You keep making this claim but you have no evidence. Poles are openly and loudly defying the West’s demands to take in Muslim refugees. This is a fact. Your wild speculation that if Hillary asked them to because Russia would hate it, they would, is pure fantasy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    There are different ways to describe same situations. What you say is emotionally loaded in a biased way, but not inaccurate per se: survival often means being a coward. What is missing is the recognition that Czechs have been smarter in handling the difficult circumstances. And the frequent Polish betrayals.

    As for the migrants: it is not a 'wild theory' that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn't and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.) And if Hillary was elected the traditional Polish attitude 'we stand with the West' would certainly influence P&S. I call that attitude 'eager to please' because that's how I hear it described by my Western acquaintances.

    Today Poland is resisting the Brussels dictate. Good for them. But a Pole, Tusk, is one of the implementor of the migrant policies. And there are 'grumblings' in Warsaw that 'Poland must do its part', and that 'Western unity cannot be jeopardised'. Poland has betrayed in the past, let's see how this plays out. The hatred for 'Russia' seems so overwhelming that anything West wants is usually possible .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. ussr andy says:
    @AP
    Are they taking any?

    whoosh.gif …

    PS even if they aren’t, they won’t be able to hold out forever, ditto every other sh*tlib policy. I want to be wrong

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Beckow says:
    @AP

    If you really think that ‘don’t fight against hopeless odds‘ translates into ‘they do what they are told’, you might have some hormonal issues. ‘Hopeless odds’ means that you lose if you fight, and in the context of WWII Nazis, it means you die.
     
    So, in your opinion, everyone who was weaker than the Nazis should have just capitulated to them without any fighting. That would have been everybody other than the Soviets. And hell - the Soviets at the beginning in the first year, too. They should have just surrendered after the first few weeks.

    It's good for Czechs - they surrendered without fighting, and dutifully did what they were told, working for the German occupiers (while no doubt grumbling to themselves) while others fought and died. And Czechs reaped the benefits from the actions of those who did not act as Czechs.

    Happened with the fall of Communism, too. Poles did the work, Czechs benefited. It makes sense from a very practical point of view. Nowadays who is loudly demanding EU change its policies? Hungary and Poland. And if they succeed, who will benefit? The quiet, servile Czechs.

    it was Poland that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 with Soviet tanks
     
    Czech miscalculation: they thought everyone was liberalizing. But there too, they surrendered without much of a struggle, unlike Hungarians in 1956.

    And in the 1980′s Poles were desperately lining up in border towns to shop for food and clothes in Czechoslovakia. They patiently waited in long queues and begged to exchange their worthless zlotys. Czechs used to say that Poles bark a lot, but come to be fed in Czechoslovakia.
     
    Sure, Poland was poorer. Czech attitude was interesting: it was wrong to complain about Communism, better to be servile and better fed. From Polish POV - Poles were shocked at how pro-Commie the Czechs were.

    As I pointed out to you above, Poles are very quick when it comes to pleasing the West.
     
    You keep making this claim but you have no evidence. Poles are openly and loudly defying the West's demands to take in Muslim refugees. This is a fact. Your wild speculation that if Hillary asked them to because Russia would hate it, they would, is pure fantasy.

    There are different ways to describe same situations. What you say is emotionally loaded in a biased way, but not inaccurate per se: survival often means being a coward. What is missing is the recognition that Czechs have been smarter in handling the difficult circumstances. And the frequent Polish betrayals.

    As for the migrants: it is not a ‘wild theory’ that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn’t and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.) And if Hillary was elected the traditional Polish attitude ‘we stand with the West’ would certainly influence P&S. I call that attitude ‘eager to please’ because that’s how I hear it described by my Western acquaintances.

    Today Poland is resisting the Brussels dictate. Good for them. But a Pole, Tusk, is one of the implementor of the migrant policies. And there are ‘grumblings’ in Warsaw that ‘Poland must do its part’, and that ‘Western unity cannot be jeopardised’. Poland has betrayed in the past, let’s see how this plays out. The hatred for ‘Russia’ seems so overwhelming that anything West wants is usually possible .

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    As for the migrants: it is not a ‘wild theory’ that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn’t and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.)
     
    Link to this? IIRC Tusk was also against migrants, but was more diplomatic about this than the current Polish government. He became opposed to the Polish government's anti-migrant position (saying Poland must share some of the EU burden re: migrants) after he left Poland, while also trying to lower the number of migrants coming into the EU - telling them not to come, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. melanf says:
    @AP
    Looks right. Russians along the Volga are darker than northern Ukrainians, who are darker than Russians from Novgorod. Poland looks oddly dark on that map, however. What is the source?

    A few years ago on specialized forums discussed the research that formed the basis of maps. But now I can’t find the link.

    Poland looks oddly dark on that map, however

    There are other such studies/maps. Poland on these maps looks more blonde.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. AP says:
    @Beckow
    There are different ways to describe same situations. What you say is emotionally loaded in a biased way, but not inaccurate per se: survival often means being a coward. What is missing is the recognition that Czechs have been smarter in handling the difficult circumstances. And the frequent Polish betrayals.

    As for the migrants: it is not a 'wild theory' that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn't and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.) And if Hillary was elected the traditional Polish attitude 'we stand with the West' would certainly influence P&S. I call that attitude 'eager to please' because that's how I hear it described by my Western acquaintances.

    Today Poland is resisting the Brussels dictate. Good for them. But a Pole, Tusk, is one of the implementor of the migrant policies. And there are 'grumblings' in Warsaw that 'Poland must do its part', and that 'Western unity cannot be jeopardised'. Poland has betrayed in the past, let's see how this plays out. The hatred for 'Russia' seems so overwhelming that anything West wants is usually possible .

    As for the migrants: it is not a ‘wild theory’ that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn’t and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.)

    Link to this? IIRC Tusk was also against migrants, but was more diplomatic about this than the current Polish government. He became opposed to the Polish government’s anti-migrant position (saying Poland must share some of the EU burden re: migrants) after he left Poland, while also trying to lower the number of migrants coming into the EU – telling them not to come, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are trying to excuse it. Tusk's government agreed to migrant relocation to Poland. What they said, 'we don't like it, etc...', makes no difference. I think some Western states said the same thing, they also were not enthusiastic about it. What mattered was the agreement to take the migrants. If Tusk's party won re-election there would be thousands of migrants coming to Poland this year. So how were they against?

    Everybody 'tries to lower the number of migrants', Merkel does, Juncker does - they all say the same thing. What matters to rational people is what people actually do, not what they say.

    I stand by my view that Poland is too volatile on the migrant issue. They are admirable right now, but their history of trying to be always 'united with the West' suggests that they can be rolled over. You will never be able to do tha to Czechs, they are more self-confident.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Beckow says:
    @AP

    As for the migrants: it is not a ‘wild theory’ that Poland has had a volatile position, Tusk agreed to moving migrants to Poland less than 2 years ago. (Czechs didn’t and went to the EU court with the Hungarians.)
     
    Link to this? IIRC Tusk was also against migrants, but was more diplomatic about this than the current Polish government. He became opposed to the Polish government's anti-migrant position (saying Poland must share some of the EU burden re: migrants) after he left Poland, while also trying to lower the number of migrants coming into the EU - telling them not to come, etc.

    You are trying to excuse it. Tusk’s government agreed to migrant relocation to Poland. What they said, ‘we don’t like it, etc…‘, makes no difference. I think some Western states said the same thing, they also were not enthusiastic about it. What mattered was the agreement to take the migrants. If Tusk’s party won re-election there would be thousands of migrants coming to Poland this year. So how were they against?

    Everybody ‘tries to lower the number of migrants’, Merkel does, Juncker does – they all say the same thing. What matters to rational people is what people actually do, not what they say.

    I stand by my view that Poland is too volatile on the migrant issue. They are admirable right now, but their history of trying to be always ‘united with the West’ suggests that they can be rolled over. You will never be able to do tha to Czechs, they are more self-confident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Do you have an idea of how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in? A symbolic couple hundred, as Japan did?

    From my understanding (I may be wrong, I haven't followed Tusk closely) Tusk unlike Merkel was against accepting migrants, calling it a mistake from the beginning, but unlike the current Polish government was more of a "good European" and said that Poland must take on some of the burden once the mistake was made ("we took EU money, we need to help them if they ask us to help") while not actually agreeing to take in large amounts of them.

    At any rate, the idea of taking them is is very unpopular among the Polish people, Poland is a democracy, and a party agreeing to take them has little to no chance of winning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You are trying to excuse it. Tusk's government agreed to migrant relocation to Poland. What they said, 'we don't like it, etc...', makes no difference. I think some Western states said the same thing, they also were not enthusiastic about it. What mattered was the agreement to take the migrants. If Tusk's party won re-election there would be thousands of migrants coming to Poland this year. So how were they against?

    Everybody 'tries to lower the number of migrants', Merkel does, Juncker does - they all say the same thing. What matters to rational people is what people actually do, not what they say.

    I stand by my view that Poland is too volatile on the migrant issue. They are admirable right now, but their history of trying to be always 'united with the West' suggests that they can be rolled over. You will never be able to do tha to Czechs, they are more self-confident.

    Do you have an idea of how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in? A symbolic couple hundred, as Japan did?

    From my understanding (I may be wrong, I haven’t followed Tusk closely) Tusk unlike Merkel was against accepting migrants, calling it a mistake from the beginning, but unlike the current Polish government was more of a “good European” and said that Poland must take on some of the burden once the mistake was made (“we took EU money, we need to help them if they ask us to help”) while not actually agreeing to take in large amounts of them.

    At any rate, the idea of taking them is is very unpopular among the Polish people, Poland is a democracy, and a party agreeing to take them has little to no chance of winning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in?"
     
    6,000 per year (plus reunited families). That's not symbolic. By now there would be close to 50,000 migrants relocated to Poland.

    Being against something and then doing it for the sake of 'unity' is an odd way to show independence. I trust Czechs and their quiet self-interest more than Polish emotionalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Beckow says:
    @AP
    Do you have an idea of how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in? A symbolic couple hundred, as Japan did?

    From my understanding (I may be wrong, I haven't followed Tusk closely) Tusk unlike Merkel was against accepting migrants, calling it a mistake from the beginning, but unlike the current Polish government was more of a "good European" and said that Poland must take on some of the burden once the mistake was made ("we took EU money, we need to help them if they ask us to help") while not actually agreeing to take in large amounts of them.

    At any rate, the idea of taking them is is very unpopular among the Polish people, Poland is a democracy, and a party agreeing to take them has little to no chance of winning.

    “how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in?”

    6,000 per year (plus reunited families). That’s not symbolic. By now there would be close to 50,000 migrants relocated to Poland.

    Being against something and then doing it for the sake of ‘unity’ is an odd way to show independence. I trust Czechs and their quiet self-interest more than Polish emotionalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It says here 5,000, with the request that they be Christian refugees:

    http://www.krakowpost.com/10477/2015/09/poland-to-accept-5000-refugees

    With arguments of refugees being forced to leave Syria due to ‘religious prosecution’, Kopacz’s only communicated preference for the refugees has been that they be Christian.
     
    Moreover, nobody seems to have actually gotten approved:

    But what chance does a refugee have of getting asylum in Poland?...as of earlier this year, out of 1,284 applicants for refugee status none have been granted. The major point of contention with regards to the quotas is control over who can be granted asylum.
     
    Tusk's own party, while officially accepting refugees, was thwarting the efforts to actually take them in.

    So two approaches - Tusk, saying he'll accept a few thousand while his party denies all the applications (or fills the slots with Ukrainians), vs. Kaczynski, who flat-out openly refuses to take them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. AP says:
    @Beckow

    "how many migrants Tusk agreed to take in?"
     
    6,000 per year (plus reunited families). That's not symbolic. By now there would be close to 50,000 migrants relocated to Poland.

    Being against something and then doing it for the sake of 'unity' is an odd way to show independence. I trust Czechs and their quiet self-interest more than Polish emotionalism.

    It says here 5,000, with the request that they be Christian refugees:

    http://www.krakowpost.com/10477/2015/09/poland-to-accept-5000-refugees

    With arguments of refugees being forced to leave Syria due to ‘religious prosecution’, Kopacz’s only communicated preference for the refugees has been that they be Christian.

    Moreover, nobody seems to have actually gotten approved:

    But what chance does a refugee have of getting asylum in Poland?…as of earlier this year, out of 1,284 applicants for refugee status none have been granted. The major point of contention with regards to the quotas is control over who can be granted asylum.

    Tusk’s own party, while officially accepting refugees, was thwarting the efforts to actually take them in.

    So two approaches – Tusk, saying he’ll accept a few thousand while his party denies all the applications (or fills the slots with Ukrainians), vs. Kaczynski, who flat-out openly refuses to take them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    No, it was 6,000/annually. The preference for Christians was purely cosmetic, it had no bearing on reality if the migrants would start arriving.

    Yes, Poland thwarted any actual relocations, but I wouldn't credit Tusk's party. If they stayed in power, the migrants would be allowed in. They stalled until the elections, and then they were out.

    Look, I said number of times that Poland today is behaving admiringly with regard to migrants. Our disagreements had to do with other issues. Let's see if P&S can stick with its program.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Beckow says:
    @AP
    It says here 5,000, with the request that they be Christian refugees:

    http://www.krakowpost.com/10477/2015/09/poland-to-accept-5000-refugees

    With arguments of refugees being forced to leave Syria due to ‘religious prosecution’, Kopacz’s only communicated preference for the refugees has been that they be Christian.
     
    Moreover, nobody seems to have actually gotten approved:

    But what chance does a refugee have of getting asylum in Poland?...as of earlier this year, out of 1,284 applicants for refugee status none have been granted. The major point of contention with regards to the quotas is control over who can be granted asylum.
     
    Tusk's own party, while officially accepting refugees, was thwarting the efforts to actually take them in.

    So two approaches - Tusk, saying he'll accept a few thousand while his party denies all the applications (or fills the slots with Ukrainians), vs. Kaczynski, who flat-out openly refuses to take them.

    No, it was 6,000/annually. The preference for Christians was purely cosmetic, it had no bearing on reality if the migrants would start arriving.

    Yes, Poland thwarted any actual relocations, but I wouldn’t credit Tusk’s party. If they stayed in power, the migrants would be allowed in. They stalled until the elections, and then they were out.

    Look, I said number of times that Poland today is behaving admiringly with regard to migrants. Our disagreements had to do with other issues. Let’s see if P&S can stick with its program.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    So the Polish behavior regarding migrants hasn't really been volatile - it was consistently anti-, but varied in intensity, from agreeing to take in a small number (but conveniently not approving any of them) to outright refusal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. AP says:
    @Beckow
    No, it was 6,000/annually. The preference for Christians was purely cosmetic, it had no bearing on reality if the migrants would start arriving.

    Yes, Poland thwarted any actual relocations, but I wouldn't credit Tusk's party. If they stayed in power, the migrants would be allowed in. They stalled until the elections, and then they were out.

    Look, I said number of times that Poland today is behaving admiringly with regard to migrants. Our disagreements had to do with other issues. Let's see if P&S can stick with its program.

    So the Polish behavior regarding migrants hasn’t really been volatile – it was consistently anti-, but varied in intensity, from agreeing to take in a small number (but conveniently not approving any of them) to outright refusal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Beckow says:

    You are twisting the meaning of words:

    varied in intensity

    literally means volatile. There is also a quiet acknowledgment in your writing that a bit of indirectness, even hypocrisy is kind of smart. Keep it up, next you will discover the benefits of ‘cowardice‘…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You are twisting the meaning of words:

    varied in intensity

    literally means volatile.
     
    No. Volatile means "liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse." It implies extreme changes, synonyms include explosive or turbulent. Polish approach varying from "invite a small number in but not actually approve any of them" to "don't even try to bring any in" is not an extreme difference or swing. It isn't volatility.

    There is also a quiet acknowledgment in your writing that a bit of indirectness, even hypocrisy is kind of smart. Keep it up, next you will discover the benefits of ‘cowardice‘
     
    I always stated that Czech cowardice could also be seen as smart. Let others do the fighting and dying while you surrender, don't suffer too much, serve the enemy as he asks, and reap the benefits of others' hard work and suffering. Smart. Not very decent, but smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You are twisting the meaning of words:

    varied in intensity
     
    literally means volatile. There is also a quiet acknowledgment in your writing that a bit of indirectness, even hypocrisy is kind of smart. Keep it up, next you will discover the benefits of 'cowardice'...

    You are twisting the meaning of words:

    varied in intensity

    literally means volatile.

    No. Volatile means “liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse.” It implies extreme changes, synonyms include explosive or turbulent. Polish approach varying from “invite a small number in but not actually approve any of them” to “don’t even try to bring any in” is not an extreme difference or swing. It isn’t volatility.

    There is also a quiet acknowledgment in your writing that a bit of indirectness, even hypocrisy is kind of smart. Keep it up, next you will discover the benefits of ‘cowardice‘

    I always stated that Czech cowardice could also be seen as smart. Let others do the fighting and dying while you surrender, don’t suffer too much, serve the enemy as he asks, and reap the benefits of others’ hard work and suffering. Smart. Not very decent, but smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    First agreeing to take the migrants, and then reversing it - that is a fairly extreme change. Poland has gone through: socialists, liberals, P&S nationalists, they staff EU with outspoken liberals and have exactly the opposite in power at home...

    You ask me, that is volatile... The test is in the future, and nobody I talk to can predict what Warsaw will do next. With Prague or Budapest there is a lot more certainty.

    "Not very decent"
     
    Betraying Czechs in 1938 - as Poland did, or invading as in 1968 - also not very decent. Are you even capable of introspection?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Beckow says:
    @AP

    You are twisting the meaning of words:

    varied in intensity

    literally means volatile.
     
    No. Volatile means "liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse." It implies extreme changes, synonyms include explosive or turbulent. Polish approach varying from "invite a small number in but not actually approve any of them" to "don't even try to bring any in" is not an extreme difference or swing. It isn't volatility.

    There is also a quiet acknowledgment in your writing that a bit of indirectness, even hypocrisy is kind of smart. Keep it up, next you will discover the benefits of ‘cowardice‘
     
    I always stated that Czech cowardice could also be seen as smart. Let others do the fighting and dying while you surrender, don't suffer too much, serve the enemy as he asks, and reap the benefits of others' hard work and suffering. Smart. Not very decent, but smart.

    First agreeing to take the migrants, and then reversing it – that is a fairly extreme change. Poland has gone through: socialists, liberals, P&S nationalists, they staff EU with outspoken liberals and have exactly the opposite in power at home…

    You ask me, that is volatile… The test is in the future, and nobody I talk to can predict what Warsaw will do next. With Prague or Budapest there is a lot more certainty.

    “Not very decent”

    Betraying Czechs in 1938 – as Poland did, or invading as in 1968 – also not very decent. Are you even capable of introspection?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. AP says:

    First agreeing to take the migrants, and then reversing it – that is a fairly extreme change.

    Not when the agreement is for a small number and if that small number weren’t even approved, so no migrants came. Zero migrants to zero migrants is stability, not volatility.

    Betraying Czechs in 1938 – as Poland did

    Were Poland and Czechoslovakia allies in 1938?

    In 1938 Czechs decided to give their lands to Germany for nothing. Why would the Polish state allow Czechs to give Polish-inhabited lands to Germany, rather than take them to Poland?

    Also,m agan, those specific areas were taken while Poland was busy fighting in the East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - You can also follow this blog from my website *akarlin.com* and/or subscribe to this *feed*. *Comments policy*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS