PDA

View Full Version : 3 questions about World War II



Guapo
06-23-2009, 02:28 AM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

2. Why did Adolf Hitler allow the British to withdraw from Dunkirk when the German Army could have easily annihilated them?

3. The saga of Rudolf Hess is still one of the strangest incidents in World
War II. Why?

Thorum
06-23-2009, 04:17 AM
1. They were too afraid of war.

2. He didn't. They escaped.

3. Because he should have been executed after the war but wasn't.

Sol Invictus
06-23-2009, 04:36 AM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

2. Why did Adolf Hitler allow the British to withdraw from Dunkirk when the German Army could have easily annihilated them?

3. The saga of Rudolf Hess is still one of the strangest incidents in World
War II. Why?

1. Because as Hitler pointed out, the interests of those who declared war on Germany were not in tune with the common man and woman in England and France. There existed then, and continues until this day, a Zionist Occupied Government.

2. Good question. I am not a strategist at all, but I believe German troops weren't all cold-blooded murderers. Enough of the British and Canadians were slaughtered. Maybe they descided to call it a day?

3. Because Mr. Hess, I believe, wanted to make peace with the British. Germany never wanted war with the British, and he risked his own hide trying to avert the disaster that eventually fell upon Europe. It's a crying shame he failed.

SwordoftheVistula
06-23-2009, 06:31 AM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

As best I can make out, the war guarantee was primarily aimed at Germany, since Britain feared Germany more than the USSR as a threat to their own power. Also the media and other elements in Britain agitated against Germany for its treatment of the jews, while they didn't care or have much knowledge in detail about the millions who had already been massacred by the USSR. The government of Britain was dumb, but even they could figure out that they could only fight one of Germany or the USSR and not both. Chamberlain had to declare war on somebody since the other members of his party (Tories) threatened to replace him as Prime Minister if he didn't.


2. Why did Adolf Hitler allow the British to withdraw from Dunkirk when the German Army could have easily annihilated them?

3. The saga of Rudolf Hess is still one of the strangest incidents in World
War II. Why?

Hitler was an Anglophile, and also knew that Germany's loss in WWI largely came from having to fight a 2 front war. He thought that allowing the British army to escape at Dunkirk would make them more amenable to peace, in fact the opposite was true, if he had wiped out the army they might have given up the war, and allowing them to escape did nothing to encourage them to make peace.

Electronic God-Man
06-23-2009, 07:58 AM
2. Hitler didn't "allow" the Allies to get away at Dunkirk. At least not in the sense that he thought the Germans had done enough or that he thought they would want peace afterwards. German troops swept through Belgium and into Northern France at a rapid pace. This was the plan, but they did not expect it to be as easy as it had been. The German generals, who all led different advances, were so astonished at their success that they began to think something had gone wrong. I can't remember which generals they were exactly but a couple of them thought that maybe they were falling into a trap. Some of the armies stopped on their own for this reason in order to regroup and rethink what had taken place.

Hitler did eventually tell anyone who had any ideas of continuing on to the sea to stop.

Another fateful decision, this time on the part of the Germans, now helped their rescue. On May 24, Hitler, for reasons that are still unclear, ordered his tanks to halt their pursuit of the retreating Allied forces.
He didn't do it for any benevolent reason. His generals were concerned and recommended that they get their bearings straight before they threw themselves into something terrible. Generally, this would have been a good move. Only this time they should have forged ahead. Hindsight is 20/20. Later in the war, Hitler would not listen to his generals when they strongly suggested regrouping, slowing down, or retreating. It's possible that Dunkirk is the reason why.

Hors
06-23-2009, 09:29 AM
Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

Maybe because they realized that Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine is not Poland.

Finsterer Streiter
06-23-2009, 10:35 AM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?
England under Churchill wanted the war against Germany but not against the soviets.


2. Why did Adolf Hitler allow the British to withdraw from Dunkirk when the German Army could have easily annihilated them?
Strategic failure and misjudgement of the reaction of British leadership. Hitler never wanted war with England and tried to avoid it more than once. Dunkirk was a sign of good will by NS Germany, but it was completely misunderstood in England.

The trapped British corps in Dunkirk should´ve been taken captive and later used as a dead pledge. Germany returns the imprisoned Brits and England refrains from the declaration of war.


3. The saga of Rudolf Hess is still one of the strangest incidents in World
War II. Why?
The story of Heß is the story of the mercilessness of the allied forces and the story of the torment of an doter till his forced death in 1987, 46 years after getting imprisoned.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2106/hess/Hesspics/hess1985.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/22/article-0-0004E2AB00000258-263_468x336.jpg

Heß thought he can stop the war between Germany and England in a "last second save". He thought he could talk with Douglas Douglas-Hamilton and the British leadership after his landing in England. Again, epic misjudgement since Churchill wanted the war.

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 12:44 AM
1. Because as Hitler pointed out, the interests of those who declared war on Germany were not in tune with the common man and woman in England and France. There existed then, and continues until this day, a Zionist Occupied Government.


Well if Hitler said it, it MUST be true!! Contrary to what Hitler said though, I was under the impression that the British public were not only expecting to go to war with Germany by 1939, but were in support of the government's decision because Hitler's doings with Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland were quite obviously the thin end of a large wedge.
As for a Zionist Occupied Government, it would be interesting to see your evidence for this, by which I mean; "it would be interesting to see what twaddle you will spit out".



Maybe because they realized that Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine is not Poland.

Poland was more entitled to those lands that Ukraine or Byelorussia/Belarus. That was the homeland of many ethnic Poles, but the Russians moved Poland West after the war and gave those lands to the Ukrainians etc. The reason we didn't declare war on the USSR was because we couldn't afford to and we knew that at some point or another, Hitler or Stalin would stab the other in the back.

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:25 AM
Poland was more entitled to those lands that Ukraine or Byelorussia/Belarus.

oxymoron


That was the homeland of many ethnic Poles

And 20-30 times more that number ethnic Byelorussians and Ukrainians


but the Russians moved Poland West after the war and gave those lands to the Ukrainians etc.

Fascinating story! :D


The reason we didn't declare war on the USSR was because we couldn't afford to

So you admit that you're traitors, cowards and weaklings. Good.

Lulletje Rozewater
08-03-2009, 06:56 AM
Question 1
Good question! My guess is because they knew they would have their hands full with Germany and they didn't want to take on Russia at the same time.

Also, Hitler repeatedly broke the Treaty of Versailles in the 1930s. He rebuilt the German military, established bases in the Rhineland, annexed Austria, all of which violated the treaty Germany signed with Britain in 1919. Also, Hitler broke the agreement he signed with Britain at the Munich Conference when he invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. So Poland was the last straw after a long series of aggressive actions by Germany.

However, Russia had not really been aggressive in the 1930s before they invaded Poland. Also Russia had not violated any treaties with Britain that I am aware of.

I find it ironic that some previous answerers apparently don't know that Russia and Germany were ALLIES in 1939, and that Russia didn't join forces with the British until Germany invaded Russia in 1941.

Question 2
That is because it is more myth and legend than hard military facts, the truth as I see it is that the German panzer division that had advanced far enough to engage the British at Dunkirk lacked the necessary supplies and infantry support to engage 400.000 troops with their backs against the wall, Hitler was probably being more tactical than people give him credit, to attack a large concentration of troops tanks need to be supported by infantry and also infantry trained in tank support exactly the same thing happened at Arnhem when the British tanks stopped to wait for their infantry and because of it lost Arnhem bridge. Hitlers tanks would have been in grave danger if they had decided to attack the British without sufficient support, one failing of Blitzkrieg is the tank spearhead races ahead and needs to wait for its infantry and fuel, also the British air-force was very active over the channel and the Germans did not enjoy total air superiority, because of that it was possible the British navy could have been brought to bare, basically I think Hitler would rather they left without turning defeat for the British into possible Victory, remember he had won the battle for France if he kept them on the run victory was assured, An all out attack on the BEF would have forced the British and French troops to attempt a break out and England would have gone on the offensive with her navy and air-force with no Atlantic wall in place, Instead of little ships coming over to save British soldiers it would have been large ships bringing supplies and equipment, It doesn't matter that with hindsight we think that it couldn't have happened that way, In the fog of war and with limited supply and communication and a German advance that had achieved much more than the scale of the German offensive had been designed to do, Hitler was happy with the results and didn't want to turn possibly the most famous victory in history into a possible allied success or even risk it, this scenario seems more believable than Hitler wanting a peace with Britain after the withdrawal or he was not a good military commander or it was a miracle, Or Don Black was not born yet :) :)

Question 3. He knew only knew 3 words in English F--ck me Charlie

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 11:51 AM
oxymoron
And 20-30 times more that number ethnic Byelorussians and Ukrainians
Fascinating story! :D
So you admit that you're traitors, cowards and weaklings. Good.

Not really. Large non-Polish populations were moved in after the war. The Soviets were, pardon my French, ß@$*!*#?ds, and in order to keep control of their satellite states, Germany was shrunk, Poland gained land from eastern Germany but lost its eastern land to the Ukraine, Belarus etc. The Soviets deported a large number of Poles from their rightful homeland into the new, condensed, Poland.

Traitors, no. We betrayed nobody. We couldn't declare war on the Czechs, because when they were annexed, many other countries (including Poland) intervened to protect their ethnic populations living outside of their borders. We did betray the Poles to the Soviets in the end, but that is a different matter to the beginnings of the war.
Cowards, no. There is a distinction between bravery and stupidity that you clearly have no comprehension of. Why would we begin a land war in Eurasia with an army as small as ours? A much more intelligent option was to allow the Soviets and Germans to knock lumps out of each other, leaving two major powers instead of three.
Weaklings, no. Russia only pulled through because of their vast industry and numbers. If Russia and the UK were on an equal footing (same sized military etc.) then the Uk would have hammered the Russians because the Soviet military was incredibly weak -the only thing that saved it was that the Soviets had enough men to use as cannon fodder.

Hors
08-03-2009, 12:19 PM
Large non-Polish populations were moved in after the war

What does it have to do with the fact that the lands in question was not the ethinc Polish territory?


Traitors, no. We betrayed nobody. We couldn't declare war on the Czechs, because when they were annexed, many other countries (including Poland) intervened to protect their ethnic populations living outside of their borders.

Was not it what Russia did when Poland fell apart? No? Ah, the infamous Albion double standards...


Weaklings, no. Russia only pulled through because of their vast industry and numbers.

the only thing that saved it was that the Soviets had enough men to use as cannon fodder

Do us a favor, post the numbers you're talking about...

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 12:51 PM
What does it have to do with the fact that the lands in question was not the ethinc Polish territory?


They were the ethnic Polish territory, but the Soviets deported the Poles from their own land and moved others in to replace them.


Was not it what Russia did when Poland fell apart? No? Ah, the infamous Albion double standards...

Well, if you call the slaughter of the Poles at Katyn the protection of a non-existent Russian population, then you would be right.


Do us a favor, post the numbers you're talking about...

14.18% war dead, matched only by the Poles. This amounts to some 24 million Soviet deaths, which is poor military management as far as I am concerned and proof enough to me that many Russian men were ordered to their deaths by a government that didn't care for them.

Svarog
08-03-2009, 12:57 PM
Seeing 'discussions' like this one makes me realize how annoying i am for other people when i start it :D sorry :/

Hors
08-03-2009, 03:36 PM
They were the ethnic Polish territory,

You're delusional.


but the Soviets deported the Poles from their own land and moved others in to replace them.

Are you Polish? You sound dumb enough to be one...


Well, if you call the slaughter of the Poles at Katyn the protection of a non-existent Russian population, then you would be right.

How is it relevant to the topic?


14.18% war dead, matched only by the Poles. This amounts to some 24 million Soviet deaths, which is poor military management

The figure mostly stands for the civilian and POW casualties. Does the word "genocide" ring a bell?



as far as I am concerned and proof enough to me that many Russian men were ordered to their deaths by a government that didn't care for them.

I bet you're Polish. Dumb, ignorant, opinionated - you represent the finest of the Polish plumberers' gang in the UK!

Loki
08-03-2009, 03:39 PM
You're delusional.

Are you Polish? You sound dumb enough to be one...

I bet you're Polish. Dumb, ignorant, opinionated - you represent the finest of the Polish plumberers' gang in the UK!

That's not how we treat new members on Apricity. Feel free to disagree - even strongly - but don't throw insults.

SwordoftheVistula
08-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Are you Polish? You sound dumb enough to be one...

I bet you're Polish. Dumb, ignorant, opinionated


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates

15 Poland 99

26 Russia 96

ikki
08-03-2009, 03:51 PM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

2. Why did Adolf Hitler allow the British to withdraw from Dunkirk when the German Army could have easily annihilated them?

3. The saga of Rudolf Hess is still one of the strangest incidents in World
War II. Why?

1. There existed an alliance. And the soviets made sure to get a promise out of the allieds they wouldnt be blamed. Even back then they recieved lend-lease, which amounted to 2/3rds of all warmaterials, and almost a third of food. http://naurunappula.com/z/328346
2. He hoped for peace, getting britain in the alliance against communism was crucial.
3. ditto. Know that most of the political leadership and authority figures did think so, beginning with the royalty. However churchill was a bought man... living on a estate with 50 servants... all supposedly paid only by his wage as prime minster!

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 04:06 PM
Haha. Thanks Sword.

As for me being Polish, I'm not (at least not by my own definition). I'm a mongrel -a mixture of ethnicities. As for stupidity I haven't done an IQ test, but you should know that academically, I'm more successful than most of my (quote) "proper Englishman" peers -at least in my area.

As for what you quoted me -Poland had territories in Ukraine and Belarus which were historically theirs and had sufficient ethnic Polish populations to justify Polish administration in those areas.
After the war, Germany lost land to Poland and Poland lost land to Ukraine/Belarus. Ethnic Poles in the areas now under non-Polish administration were deported to within the new Polish borders.
According to you, the Soviet occupation and mass murder was in defense of an ethnic Russian population in Poland.
Soviet deaths still numbered between 8 and 11 million -still an unacceptable loss. Soviet troops were not valued by their commanders. If Stalin cared for his men, would he have said "not one step back"?

I appear to be Polish by your definition and I am in the UK -that I cannot deny. As for plumbing, well, I'm going to attending college in September and hopefully beginning an undergraduate masters in geophysics after the completion of my A levels. Plumbing ain't really my style.

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates

15 Poland 99

26 Russia 96

http://russia-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/ethnicities_of_russia

First of all, let's talk numbers: There are 21 Ethnic Republics in the Russian Federation, From Kalmykia to Tatarstan to Chuvashia. And there are more than150 Ethnic groups within the Federation's expansive borders, including such tiny ethnicities as Aguls, Kola Lapps, and Wakhs.

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:10 PM
That's not how we treat new members on Apricity. Feel free to disagree - even strongly - but don't throw insults.

You want a one-hundred-page flame thread clogged with yes-it's-the-Polish-territory and no-it-isn't-the-Polish-territory posts?

I disagreed earlier, but he kept posting inane BS without anything to back it.

The boy is plain stupid and the sooner he learns he has to substantiate what he claims here the better.

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:12 PM
1. There existed an alliance. And the soviets made sure to get a promise out of the allieds they wouldnt be blamed. Even back then they recieved lend-lease, which amounted to 2/3rds of all warmaterials, and almost a third of food. http://naurunappula.com/z/328346

Load of crap.

Loki
08-03-2009, 06:20 PM
You want a one-hundred-page flame thread clogged with yes-it's-the-Polish-territory and no-it-isn't-the-Polish-territory posts?

I disagreed earlier, but he kept posting inane BS without anything to back it.

The boy is plain stupid and the sooner he learns he has to substantiate what he claims here the better.

Well there are people here who would consider you to be stupid, but this is not the way we debate. There are other ways to express your disagreement. A 100-page flame thread is ok, it boosts the stats. ;)

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:27 PM
As for what you quoted me -Poland had territories in Ukraine and Belarus which were historically theirs

Poland is a historical Russian land


and had sufficient ethnic Polish populations to justify Polish administration in those areas.


and had sufficient ethnic Russian population to justify Russian administration in the area.



According to you, the Soviet occupation and mass murder was in defense of an ethnic Russian population in Poland.

What mass murder?


Soviet deaths still numbered between 8 and 11 million -still an unacceptable loss.

Yes, it is military losses. They're higher than those of Germany and its European allies, the ratio is 1.3 to 1. However, more than half of the Soviet losses are POWs who were treated by Germans inhumanly (5.5M died, mostly in the first year of the war). Had the Russian treated Germans as badly (percent-wise) the ratio would have been 1-1.

Another thing is that a lot of the Soviet soldiers deserted to Germans and actually fought/aided Germany. They're counted as Soviet losses. And it's not 100% correct.


Soviet troops were not valued by their commanders. If Stalin cared for his men, would he have said "not one step back"?

Was not the same order issued by Hitler later in the war?


I appear to be Polish by your definition and I am in the UK -that I cannot deny. As for plumbing, well, I'm going to attending college in September and hopefully beginning an undergraduate masters in geophysics after the completion of my A levels. Plumbing ain't really my style.

BS-ing is. I hope your knowledge of natural sciences is somewhat better than that of history and logic... for your own good. If not, better stick to plumbing...

ikki
08-03-2009, 06:31 PM
thats what you get from komissars shooting their own troops and corresponding lousy moral.... when forcing the troops into suicidal attacks

Hors
08-03-2009, 06:38 PM
thats what you get from komissars shooting their own troops and corresponding lousy moral.... when forcing the troops into suicidal attacks

I gather you're talking about the Soviet deserters I mentioned earlier.

Well, the absolute majority of them deserted in the very first weeks of the war, when there were no komissars around and the army was in hasty retreat. It were recruits from Western Ukraine and Western Byelorssia, and their morale was low because they have lived their life under Polish occupation, no sense of Mothereland, you see...

ikki
08-03-2009, 07:50 PM
I gather you're talking about the Soviet deserters I mentioned earlier.

Well, the absolute majority of them deserted in the very first weeks of the war, when there were no komissars around and the army was in hasty retreat. It were recruits from Western Ukraine and Western Byelorssia, and their morale was low because they have lived their life under Polish occupation, no sense of Mothereland, you see...

No, it was continual. Until the komissars were gotten rid of from their oversight position anyways. Poor moral, as in unwillingness to risk enemy fire in breaking out of blockades... and instead huddling... and when finally forced by even more executions... they would walk as a undisciplined mob.
So easy to machinegun machinegunners even took their own lives after having continues unceasing slaughter for hours and hours and plain couldnt do it anymore.

Æmeric
08-03-2009, 08:05 PM
1. Why did the English and French declare war on Germany after the attack on Poland but didnt declare war on the Soviets when both agreed to partition Poland in half?

Declaring war on the Germany & Soviet Union would have been a major overreach for France & Britian. As it was the first 6-months after the conquest of Poland was the "Phony War". Neither the British or French risked taking the offensive against Germany.

Another justification for not also declaring war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland is that the Soviets took territory that Lord Curzon proposed they should receive in 1919. The post 1945 boundary between Poland & the Soviet Union was very close to the Curzon Line.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Ribbentrop-Molotov.PNG

Proposed & actual territorial changes in Eastern Europe, 1939-1940.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2358&stc=1&d=1249329900

The Curzon Line & the actual post 1945 Soviet-Polish border.

Hors
08-03-2009, 08:21 PM
No, it was continual. Until the komissars were gotten rid of from their oversight position anyways. Poor moral, as in unwillingness to risk enemy fire in breaking out of blockades... and instead huddling... and when finally forced by even more executions... they would walk as a undisciplined mob.
So easy to machinegun machinegunners even took their own lives after having continues unceasing slaughter for hours and hours and plain couldnt do it anymore.

You should seek medical help.

Nodens
08-03-2009, 08:23 PM
And to think that this could have been effectively addressed with a simple: "What about the part where Finland isn't Russia?"

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 09:07 PM
Ok. I give up. You win! Your vastly superior intellligence has thwarted me; congratulations.

Hors
08-03-2009, 09:12 PM
Good boy. Not that dumb after all. And it backs the observation that Poles are not as hopelessly retarded as Estonians. (oh hello Karl! :D)

TheWingedHussar
08-03-2009, 09:19 PM
Honestly, just shut your mouth. You have the maturity of a seven year old and the intelligence to match. I'm not going to discuss anything further with you because you seem incapable of adult conversation.

Goodbye.

Äike
08-03-2009, 09:27 PM
Good boy. Not that dumb after all. And it backs the observation that Poles are not as hopelessly retarded as Estonians. (oh hello Karl! :D)

That's an ad hominem. By the way, how long will your trolling spree last this time?

Hors
08-03-2009, 09:30 PM
Honestly, just shut your mouth. You have the maturity of a seven year old and the intelligence to match. I'm not going to discuss anything further with you because you seem incapable of adult conversation.

Goodbye.

However, one has to admit that Poles are very, very, very close to Estonians when it comes to it...

Äike
08-03-2009, 09:35 PM
However, one has to admit that Poles are very, very, very close to Estonians when it comes to it...

Maybe you would stop acting like a Troll and would prefer to contribute The Apricity with intelligent posts?

Hors
08-03-2009, 09:59 PM
Do you really want me to elaborate on the Mongoloid/Asiatic origins of Estonians?!

Äike
08-03-2009, 10:04 PM
Do you really want me to elaborate on the Mongoloid/Asiatic origins of Estonians?!

Do you really want me to elaborate on the Mongoloid/Asiatic/Turkic/Tatar/Hun admixture in at least half of Russians?

:rolleyes:






I'm fighting fire with fire:)

Hors
08-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Yes, proceed, let's have some fun over clumsy Estonian clowns. :D

Jarl
08-05-2009, 10:01 AM
Poland is a historical Russian land

That's very interesting... why then, right since Vth and VIth century, it has had a very different culture and dialect?

Hors
08-05-2009, 01:06 PM
Why don't you ask TheWingedHussar the same question about Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia?

Jarl
08-06-2009, 07:56 AM
Why don't you ask TheWingedHussar the same question about Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia?

OK. Right. I see the point you're getting at, however, it scarcely proves the claim that Vladimir-Suzdal or Muscovy, an off-shoot of Rus, ever had some special rights to these, allegedly "Russian", lands. These lands have always been known by their old name of Rus (or Ruthenia), but not "Russia" - a much more modern name used to refer to the former duchy of Muscovy. If anything, it's rather the opposite, Russia is Ruthenian (Muscovy/Russia being a splinter that broke off from Rus).

Hors
08-06-2009, 08:35 AM
These lands have always been known by their old name of Rus (or Ruthenia),

No, they were not. Western Ukraine became known as Rus only under the Polish occupation.


but not "Russia" - a much more modern name used to refer to the former duchy of Muscovy.

You're wrong again. The name "Russia" (Rossiya) went into use in the 17th century only, when the Russian state was unified already. The duchy was long gone by that time. Besides, it's just the Greek pronunciation of "Rus".


If anything, it's rather the opposite, Russia is Ruthenian (Muscovy/Russia being a splinter that broke off from Rus).

You're talking senseless crap, my uneducated Polish friend.


it scarcely proves the claim that Vladimir-Suzdal or Muscovy, an off-shoot of Rus, ever had some special rights to these, allegedly "Russian", lands

The lands in question may be Russian or Ukrainian or both, but surely not Polish. It's none of Poles' business.

Jarl
08-06-2009, 08:53 AM
No, they were not. Western Ukraine became known as Rus only under the Polish occupation.

No. Western Ukraine was an integral part of Kievan Rus right from the beginning. Principalities of Halych, Włodzimierz or so called "Grody Czerwieńskie" (Przemyśl and Czerwień) - were all part of Rus. Hence the name "Rus Czerwona" or "Rus Halicko-Wlodzimierska" (later known by the bizzare name of "Galicia-Lodomeria").



As for Rus versus Russia, here is the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives

At some stage Muscovite dukes, for the purpose of their own propaganda, chose to style themselves "dukes of all Rus". However, by no means were they dukes "of all Rus" as half of what was formerly "Rus" legally belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - with most of the old, local Rurikid ducal houses (like Ostrogscy or Wisniowieccy) actively participating in the political life of the country.


P.S.

I never claimed Rus was Polish or anything alike. However, I also can't see how Rus should be regarded as "Muscovite-Russian" - as both are younger entities that stem directly from Kievan Rus. Muscovy did not have any special rights to the lands of former Kievan Rus. It had the same rights as other principalities which stemmed from Rus, including those that were vassalized by Lithuanians and Poles.

Hors
08-06-2009, 01:14 PM
No.

Yes.


Western Ukraine was an integral part of Kievan Rus

Yeah, it was a part of the Russian feudal state


right from the beginning.

Not quite so. See below.



Principalities of Halych, Włodzimierz or so called "Grody Czerwieńskie" (Przemyśl and Czerwień) - were all part of Rus. Hence the name "Rus Czerwona" or "Rus Halicko-Wlodzimierska" (later known by the bizzare name of "Galicia-Lodomeria").

Chervonnaya Rus' is a literature term which appeared in the 16th century, Rus' Galizko-Vladimirskaya is a scientific term of th 19th century.

Rus' proper originated on the lands of the Volynzevo culture (NE Ukraine and SW Russia) and later the term applied to Middle Dnieper and sometimes Novgorod, original lands of the first Russian state. As Western Ukraine was not part of the original state the term did not apply to it. It became known as Rus only under Polish occupation.


At some stage Muscovite dukes, for the purpose of their own propaganda, chose to style themselves "dukes of all Rus".

Only when they became heads of the Rurik house and thus got the right to rule all Russian lands.



[QUOTE]However, by no means were they dukes "of all Rus" as half of what was formerly "Rus" legally belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

ROFL

Who would buy this Polish crap?



- with most of the old, local Rurikid ducal houses (like Ostrogscy or Wisniowieccy) actively participating in the political life of the country.

Lies again. The local Rurikids were mostly wiped out. And in any case the land belonged to the head of the Rurikid dynastry, that's to the prince of Vladimir principality. Polaks had nothing to do with it.

By the way, are you ready to apply the same silly logic to the partitions of Poland?


I never claimed Rus was Polish or anything alike. However, I also can't see how Rus should be regarded as "Muscovite-Russian" - as both are younger entities that stem directly from Kievan Rus.

The very term "Kievan Rus" signifies unity of Russia of all times, underlining the integrity of the Russian state regardless of the location of the capital, be it Novgorod, Kiev, Vladimir ir Moscow.


as both are younger entities that stem directly from Kievan Rus.

both?


Muscovy did not have any special rights to the lands of former Kievan Rus.

Moscow principality? No. The head of the Rurik house, the grand duke? Yes.


It had the same rights as other principalities which stemmed from Rus, .

See above.


including those that were vassalized by Lithuanians and Poles

Brutally conquered and later brutally oppressed. They were no vassal principalities, they were occupied Russian territories.