Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[dudalb]

Non-interventionism isn't what led to WW2, hence my statement that blaming non-interventionism for the faults of foreign interventionism, WW1 and US/UK bankers ******** on Germany directly leading to WW2 seems like a poor way to describe the faults of non-interventionism.

No one is proposing appeasement, which is also an action, we are stating no action at all, as it has nothing to do with the security and defense of the US. That is non-interventionism.

Stance on Russia intevening in Ukraine is the same as my stance on the US/NATO intervening and causing the coup in Ukraine. Its terrible. That said it has happened and the peaceful resolution of letting Ukraine breakup seems the best for everyone. If those Russian cities and communities want to vote to leave as to not be under the neo-nazi leaning and US/NATO led government in power now let them. Let them peacefully sepearte and go their own way.

The International Bankers caused everything. Should have guessed that.The Classic Cosmic Conspiracy Theory.

 

[trustbutverify]

Non-interventionism isn't what led to WW2, hence my statement that blaming non-interventionism for the faults of foreign interventionism, WW1 and US/UK bankers ******** on Germany directly leading to WW2 seems like a poor way to describe the faults of non-interventionism.

No one is proposing appeasement, which is also an action, we are stating no action at all, as it has nothing to do with the security and defense of the US. That is non-interventionism.

Stance on Russia intevening in Ukraine is the same as my stance on the US/NATO intervening and causing the coup in Ukraine. Its terrible. That said it has happened and the peaceful resolution of letting Ukraine breakup seems the best for everyone. If those Russian cities and communities want to vote to leave as to not be under the neo-nazi leaning and US/NATO led government in power now let them. Let them peacefully sepearte and go their own way.

So the USG is responsible for Nazi Germany and and the Ukrainian rebellion? I'm just curious; which international problems have not been caused by thegreatsatan?

 

[angrysoba]

At the risk of a Godwin..again....Hitler was pretty damn popular in Germany before World War 2 started.

Yes, indeed he was. As was, and still is, Stalin in Russia. There's no accounting for taste.

 

[TheRealnz]

So the USG is responsible for Nazi Germany and and the Ukrainian rebellion? I'm just curious; which international problems have not been caused by thegreatsatan?

Since you asked.

You do know the only reason the US entered WW1 was to ensure loans given to France and the UK would be repaid. You do realize that the Treaty of Versailles are universally seen as the leading cause of WW2 and overly harsh and designed not only to insult the german people, but cripple them economically for the main benefit of the UK and France business wise.

LOL.

 

[angrysoba]

Since you asked.

You do know the only reason the US entered WW1 was to ensure loans given to France and the UK would be repaid. You do realize that the Treaty of Versailles are universally seen as the leading cause of WW2 and overly harsh and designed not only to insult the german people, but cripple them economically for the main benefit of the UK and France business wise.

LOL.

Actually, at the risk of going off-topic, the TOV is NOT "universally seen" as the leading cause of WW2. It was certainly held up as a grievance by a number of politicians in the 1930s such as Adolf Hitler, and it was certainly useful for emotionally blackmailing Britain and France into acquiescing in Hitler's early foreign policy adventures, (remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the taking over of the Sudetenland etc...), but only an extremely simplistic view of history makes it the leading cause of WW2. Besides, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty that Germany insisted upon Russia was far more onerous, and anyway, Germany did start WW1 if the Fischer Thesis is correct, so it wasn't surprising that they had to sign the war guilt clause which was the main thing that Germany was upset about (along with the ole stab-in-the-back theory that was also popular).

But that is most certainly for another thread...

 

[uke2se]

Non-interventionism isn't what led to WW2,

No, an expansionist regime made sure it happened. "Non-interventionism" (which was called "appeasement" back then) did not help prevent war. Hence my saying it didn't work.

hence my statement that blaming non-interventionism for the faults of foreign interventionism, WW1 and US/UK bankers ******** on Germany directly leading to WW2 seems like a poor way to describe the faults of non-interventionism.

This sounds like you're saying US and UK bankers started WWII. Without getting much too off topic, is this really what you just said?

No one is proposing appeasement, which is also an action, we are stating no action at all, as it has nothing to do with the security and defense of the US. That is non-interventionism.

No, you are proposing appeasement. You see, either you can ignore the thing altogether, which is isolationist, or you can appease by keeping up trade etc.

Stance on Russia intevening in Ukraine is the same as my stance on the US/NATO intervening and causing the coup in Ukraine. Its terrible. That said it has happened and the peaceful resolution of letting Ukraine breakup seems the best for everyone. If those Russian cities and communities want to vote to leave as to not be under the neo-nazi leaning and US/NATO led government in power now let them. Let them peacefully sepearte and go their own way.

But what about all the people who don't want huge swaths of territory that they have spent millions in tax money to build up just picks up and leaves to another country? What about the population in the affected areas that don't want to join Russia? Should't these people have a say? What about the people who have relatives outside the affected areas, or people living on the border of a region that suddenly determines it wants to be a part of Russia?

Do you understand the need for rules governing this kind of thing? We call those rules "international laws". The "referendum" in Crimea is in violation of international law, as well as the Ukrainian constitution. Russia is in violation of international law when it occupies territory belonging to another nation. A tu-quoqe isn't going to be enough to hand-wave all this away.

 

[uke2se]

Another useful idiot.

That doesn't argue the point. It's simply an insult. Are you saying it hasn't always been the power of the president?

 

[uke2se]

Actually, at the risk of going off-topic, the TOV is NOT "universally seen" as the leading cause of WW2. It was certainly held up as a grievance by a number of politicians in the 1930s such as Adolf Hitler, and it was certainly useful for emotionally blackmailing Britain and France into acquiescing in Hitler's early foreign policy adventures, (remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the taking over of the Sudetenland etc...), but only an extremely simplistic view of history makes it the leading cause of WW2. Besides, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty that Germany insisted upon Russia was far more onerous, and anyway, Germany did start WW1 if the Fischer Thesis is correct, so it wasn't surprising that they had to sign the war guilt clause which was the main thing that Germany was upset about (along with the ole stab-in-the-back theory that was also popular).

But that is most certainly for another thread...

I'm not sure if it's suitable for any thread outside the conspiracy section actually. It seems to me that TheRealnz is proposing a very odd version of history.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not sure if it's suitable for any thread outside the conspiracy section actually. It seems to me that TheRealnz is proposing a very odd version of history.

No, the TOV-as-a-leading-cause-of-WWII is a perfectly respectable debate topic in the history section, but it is not an idea that has "universal" support among historians. And it is not a topic that belongs here, so I won't comment on it here any further.

 

[trustbutverify]

You do know the only reason the US entered WW1 was to ensure loans given to France and the UK would be repaid. You do realize that the Treaty of Versailles are universally seen as the leading cause of WW2 and overly harsh and designed not only to insult the german people, but cripple them economically for the main benefit of the UK and France business wise.

LOL.

I probably know more about the environment Nazism arouse from than you have gleaned from your Wikipedia articles. "LOL".

Since you asked.

I asked which international problems thegreatsatan isn't responsible for. You answered with some stuff you read about WW2 everyone already knows. Stuff which doesn't change the dominant role isolationism and an international state of denial played in directly leading to the rise of Hitler, WW2 and the holocaust. None of which answered my question. LOL.

 

[TheRealnz]

No, an expansionist regime made sure it happened. "Non-interventionism" (which was called "appeasement" back then) did not help prevent war. Hence my saying it didn't work.



This sounds like you're saying US and UK bankers started WWII. Without getting much too off topic, is this really what you just said?



No, you are proposing appeasement. You see, either you can ignore the thing altogether, which is isolationist, or you can appease by keeping up trade etc.



But what about all the people who don't want huge swaths of territory that they have spent millions in tax money to build up just picks up and leaves to another country? What about the population in the affected areas that don't want to join Russia? Should't these people have a say? What about the people who have relatives outside the affected areas, or people living on the border of a region that suddenly determines it wants to be a part of Russia?

Do you understand the need for rules governing this kind of thing? We call those rules "international laws". The "referendum" in Crimea is in violation of international law, as well as the Ukrainian constitution. Russia is in violation of international law when it occupies territory belonging to another nation. A tu-quoqe isn't going to be enough to hand-wave all this away.

The sole cause of WW2 wasn't appeasement or non-interventionism, it was the crooked treaty of versalles that killed German industry for the express benefit of aiding France and the UK. Without that there is no Hitler. I'll go further and say there would not have been a treaty of versailles if the US never entered WW1 in the first place (interventionism) and that WW1 was overall a worthless war fought for no reason.

As for what I just said, this is a forum, what I have typed is pretty clear.

Appeasement isn't giving to get along, not getting involved in actions that don't involve you is called non-interventionism. Also called respect of national sovereignty.

As for your critique on Ukraine, if Ukranians want to fight with regard to ukraine seperating it sounds like an issue that should be handled solely by Ukranians, not russians or the US/UK/NATO so again there is no reason for any side to be involved, another score for non-interventionism.

International law supports coups like in Egypt where elected leaders are removed by military, same in Pakistan, but it doesn't support vote for secession, except when the sole world super power thinks its valid, so while South Sudan voting for secession is applauded Crimia is looked down upon? Doesn't sound like the rule of law at all when it is so arbitrary and really falls down to if the big boys like it or not, that is the rule of man, not of law.

 

[TheRealnz]

That doesn't argue the point. It's simply an insult. Are you saying it hasn't always been the power of the president?

Yes. Show me in US Law where the POTUS may bypass both Houses of Congress and initiate Law.

 

[trustbutverify]

I probably know more about the environment Nazism arouse arose from than you have gleaned from your Wikipedia articles. "LOL".

Correction.

 

[TheRealnz]

I probably know more about the environment Nazism arouse from than you have gleaned from your Wikipedia articles. "LOL".



I asked which international problems thegreatsatan isn't responsible for. You answered with some stuff you read about WW2 everyone already knows. Stuff which doesn't change the dominant role isolationism and an international state of denial played in directly leading to the rise of Hitler, WW2 and the holocaust. None of which answered my question. LOL.

thegreatsatan?

 

[tyr_13]

Wow, just wow.

Thirded. Fourthed. Whatever. I agree.

He even says that the tanks are no big deal. Tanks from an invading state are no big deal.

Although I do love the comments calling him out for the many geography fails.

 

[TheRealnz]

It seems the best choice for the least amount of blood shed is for the nation to split

Ukraine in its present borders is an artificial state because its borders have no ethnic or historical justification.

There are territories that are historically Ukrainian, but they are in the west and centre. Lviv is historically Ukrainian, and so is Kiev; but Odessa is not, nor are Sevastopol, Kharkov, Donetsk or Lugansk.

The present border between Ukraine and Russia was established in 1918, when Ukrainian nationalists claimed a very large territory comprising all lands where a Ukrainian population was present, regardless of whether that Ukrainian population comprised a majority or not. That border has no historical basis whatsoever.

 

[angrysoba]

[qimg]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png[/qimg]

It seems the best choice for the least amount of blood shed is for the nation to split Ukraine in its present borders is an artificial state because its borders have no ethnic or historical justification.
There are territories that are historically Ukrainian, but they are in the west and centre. Lviv is historically Ukrainian, and so is Kiev; but Odessa is not, nor are Sevastopol, Kharkov, Donetsk or Lugansk.

The present border between Ukraine and Russia was established in 1918, when Ukrainian nationalists claimed a very large territory comprising all lands where a Ukrainian population was present, regardless of whether that Ukrainian population comprised a majority or not. That border has no historical basis whatsoever.

Who died and made you Czar of the World?

When did it become your job to start carving up the world and determining where everybody should live and what's an "artificial state"?

And who said countries must split up according to ethnic origin?

Are you going to apply this reasoning all across Europe and Asia now? Does this mean you are going to call Putin and tell him that the Chechens were right all along and that they can become an independent state?

Are you going to carve off a piece of Romania to give to the Magyars because they are Hungary?

And what about the US? Does this mean that boroughs of New York will have to declare independence from each other on ethnic grounds?

 

[McHrozni]

As for your critique on Ukraine, if Ukranians want to fight with regard to ukraine seperating it sounds like an issue that should be handled solely by Ukranians, not russians or the US/UK/NATO so again there is no reason for any side to be involved, another score for non-interventionism.

A valid international treaty binds US, France, UK and, ironically, Russia, to uphold Ukrainian territorial soverignty and explicity prohibits them to strong-arm Ukraine with nuclear threats or economic means. Putin is violating that in all ways, so the civilized world is actually required to help them.

International law supports coups like in Egypt where elected leaders are removed by military,

Lie.

International law states that internal affairs are to remain internal, unless there are exceptional circumstances present. This is why Russia was lying bout huge numbers of refugees coming from Ukraine - even if they had an openly neo-Nazi regime in place (as Russia is lying they do), no one would be permitted to do anything until they started doing the things usually associated with Nazis. Putin pointed to just that in both Libya and Syria in his justifications to stand behind them, even though there are sufficient exceptional circumstances to warrant intervention in both cases.

but it doesn't support vote for secession, except when the sole world super power thinks its valid, so while South Sudan voting for secession is applauded Crimia is looked down upon?

Sudan had a civil war that lasted for near two decades, many refugees, ethnic cleansing, and so on. Crimean crisis sprung up overnight, a hallmark of an artificial crisis the 'anti-imperialists' (and Putin as it happens) are so keen to assert the West creates all over the world. The two situations aren't even similar.

On the other hand, Putin has gone on the record that a referendum of any quality is enough to justify secession. When will he recognise indenpendance of Kosovo and hold a referendum in Chechnya? Until he does so he does not support the rule of law - i.e. the exact thing you assert is true for the West is undeniably true for Putin.

McHrozni

 

[Dcdrac]

Is it perfectly alright then for Poland to absorb Kaliningrad using the Putin principle

 

[Border Reiver]

[qimg]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png[/qimg]



It seems the best choice for the least amount of blood shed is for the nation to split

Because the current ethnic tensions that showed up shortly after Putin's buddy was removed by his own Parliament are indicative of how the Ukraine has functioned for the last 23 years as an independent nation?

Ukraine in its present borders is an artificial state because its borders have no ethnic or historical justification.

Those borders have been accepted for over 100 years, by all parties, including Russia. They have a better "historical basis" then say the present borders of Poland, Germany and this completely artificial Russian province of Kalingrad. There are very few if any states on this planet that are drawn on 100% ethnic lines! or even historical ones.

There are territories that are historically Ukrainian, but they are in the west and centre. Lviv is historically Ukrainian, and so is Kiev; but Odessa is not, nor are Sevastopol, Kharkov, Donetsk or Lugansk.

These places have been Ukrainian for about 100 years.

The present border between Ukraine and Russia was established in 1918, when Ukrainian nationalists claimed a very large territory comprising all lands where a Ukrainian population was present, regardless of whether that Ukrainian population comprised a majority or not. That border has no historical basis whatsoever.

Except that the border has been in its present form since the reincorporation of the Ukraine into the USSR and the borders were guaranteed in their present form in a 1994 treaty signed by Russia.