From: uklm@permabulator.33mail.com
On 21:59 14 Aug 2025, JNugent said:
> On 14/08/2025 04:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
>> On 14/08/2025 15:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2025 04:43 PM, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2025 01:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Aug 2025 at 10:28:14 BST, "JNugent"
>>>>>> On 11/08/2025 09:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 20:20:17 BST, "JNugent"
>>>>>>>> On 11/08/2025 01:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point of order: they have invaded Syria, which is more
>>>>>>>>> relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When was that? Are you sure you are not referring to the
>>>>>>>> removal of threat to Israel from within Syria?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I am sure. They had already annexed the Golan Heights, and
>>>>>>> now they have occupied a large swathe of Syria surrounding
>>>>>>> this. As well as bombing Damascus and various other places. The
>>>>>>> fact you didn't know this does not make it untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attacking a neigbouring country (eg, by launching rockets and
>>>>>> high explosives from across the border) always carries the risk
>>>>>> that the territory used for the attacks will be annexed. We used
>>>>>> to call it "conquest", though it is a different matter from
>>>>>> invading a state with a view to taking it over.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It happened to parts of Germany after WW2 and those territories
>>>>>> are still parts of Poland and Russia. What's the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean between Germany occupying Poland, and Israel occupying
>>>>> Syria?
>>>>
>>>> No. Had I meant that, that is what I would have asked. But I
>>>> didn't ask that.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you say:
>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely none! That was rather my point.
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't evena mild attempt to answer the question I asked.
>>>>
>>>> As you were well aware, the reference was to the post-1945
>>>> settlement with Poland possessing a large part of what had been
>>>> Germany and the Soviet Union possessing another large part (though
>>>> smaller than the portion subsumed into Poland).
>>>>
>>>> Was / is that acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> It's a straightforward enough question, well capable of a "Yes" or
>>>> "No" answer.
>>>>
>>>> Or, one supposes, an "I don't know" answer.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether an answer to that is going to appear?
>>>
>>> Or perhaps someone has realised the obvious implications of any
>>> answer of "Yes" or "No"?
>>
>> Or perhaps nobody cares very much or nobody is reading this thread
>> now. So why not answer your question yourself?
>
> I'm in two minds about it. I'm still not sure that the accommodations
> with the Soviet Union accepted by Roosevelt (later, Truman) and
> Churchill (later Attlee) were proper.
>
> Eastern Europe was not theirs to give away to Stalin, yet that's what
> they did. Ironic that the UK went to war over Poland but left Poland
> completely in the hands of one of the two 1939 invaders until
> 1989/90.
>
> If the freedom of Poland wasn't all that important to the UK in the
> forst place, one wonders whether the war could really have been worth
> it. Just imagine a world where WW2 hadn't happened.
>
> But aside from that, if it was alright for the Soviet Union and
> Poland to annexe some of the territory of an enemy power after it was
> defeated, one has to muse over the issue of whether it was equally
> acceptable for another... er... state... to annexe part of the
> territory of states which had attacked it on several occasions.
Not forgetting the huge loss of eastern Polish territory after WW2 to
the Soviet Union.
As an island with well-defined borders, Britain sometimes forgets how
mobile borders of countries in Great European Plain have been.
Territorial conquest and occupation has been happening all the time. It
is only in modern times that European borders have become far less
disputed, although Kosovo is clearly an exception. Also Ukraine.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
