In 1939 the west thought Hitler would stop in Czech Republic.
In 2008 the West thought Putin would stop in Georgia.
Anyone want to speculate on where this is headed?
In 1939 the west thought Hitler would stop in Czech Republic.
In 2008 the West thought Putin would stop in Georgia.
Anyone want to speculate on where this is headed?
World War III
Pie
Additions to Margie's patio
The important question is, If it is WW3, how long will we sit on the sidelines before getting sucked into it......AGAIN.
Scary.
Relax. He's trying to reclaim his "empire" not rule the world.
Not good, but not horrible.
Just be glad Ukraine is not a NATO member.... of course, if they where, he likely would not be messing with them.
I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series "Blueprint for Armageddon" which is a very detailed look at how WWI got its start and also My History Beat up your Politics's "Umbrella Man" about Chamberlain in the start of WWII. It's kind of interesting and scary to see some of the parallels.
z31maniac wrote: World War III Pie Additions to Margie's patio
This is not really a political discussion per se... if Russia really is on the march it is no small thing to consider.
In reply to wae:
Those that do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.... or something like that. 
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Scary.
Agree.
aircooled wrote: Relax. He's trying to reclaim his "empire" not rule the world. Not good, but not horrible. Just be glad Ukraine is not a NATO member.... of course, if they where, he likely would not be messing with them.
Ehh, at some point it'll go a bit crazy. Don't forget that this was the same in the 30's with the Studenland and such.....
aircooled wrote: Relax. He's trying to reclaim his "empire" not rule the world.
A world leader who is often photographed shirtless on horseback or performing feats of strength is not the sort of guy who I trust to stop when finished conquering only those people who speak in triangles.
Even so...East Germany would be on that list would it not?
Also of note: The Russians aren't "invading". Reports talk about a couple thousand troops. I can assure you, the Russian army is a LOT larger then that.
This is more the lines of "sending some troops to help the Vietnamese fight off the communist scourge".
wae wrote: I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series "Blueprint for Armageddon" which is a very detailed look at how WWI got its start and also My History Beat up your Politics's "Umbrella Man" about Chamberlain in the start of WWII. It's kind of interesting and scary to see some of the parallels.
There has been a good series about WWI the past few days. I learned a lot I did not know. Of course the silliest thing is the reason the whole bloody mess happened. i was surprised by how many soldiers were executed for cowardice. Seemed to be hard to keep them on the front.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: ...Even so...East Germany would be on that list would it not?
Germany is clearly a member of NATO as is Poland (which he has to go through to get there). He knows what will happen if he goes there (kind of the whole point of NATO).
The more salient question is the Baltic States. Clearly part of the old USSR and members of NATO.
aircooled wrote: Also of note: The Russians aren't "invading". Reports talk about a couple thousand troops. I can assure you, the Russian army is a LOT larger then that. This is more the lines of "sending some troops to help the Vietnamese fight off the communist scourge".
I'm not really sure what to make of it - I've not been as "up" on the issues over there as I ought to be. Hence the thread - I'm sure we have guys on here with some insight. I know it started with Georgia, then Crimea, now the Ukraine. It does seem a bit Imperialistic.
spitfirebill wrote: ...Of course the silliest thing is the reason the whole bloody mess happened...
Because a number of nations really wanted a good old fashion war to do some nation building? Yes, very silly.
(they clearly did not know what they were getting into)
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Even so...East Germany would be on that list would it not?
Nope. East Germany was an Eastern Bloc country, but still technically a separate one. Not part of the USSR. And as it's now part of Germany, and a key member of NATO, I think Putin knows that it would be a whole different kettle of fish from Ukraine.
Let's not forget that just over 20 years ago, Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country. And that there is a substantial minority in Ukraine that would like to see it go back to those days. Not to justify Russia's aggression in any way, but this thing is a whole lot more complicated than "Russia is invading it's neighbor".
And yes, I know the Sudetanland was part of Germany before WW1, too. Just another part of that wonderful Treaty of Versailles that made it possible for a guy like Hitler to come to power in the first place.
You'd a thunk that after the Crimean annexation there would have been more concern.... OR... MAYBE after this you'd of thunk someone SHOULD have acted
Well........ I'm 55 in a little over a week... I could've died so many times earlier in my life.... who says 2014 wasn't my end anyway........
We historically have three reactions to unwanted Soviet (formerly "communist") occupation in small countries:
Will this be Hungary 1956, Vietnam 1964-1973, or Afghanistan 1979-1989?
None of them worked out particularly well... 
I'm watching nervously.
I feel like there isn't the will to do what it would take to stop what's already well underway from the EU or US - so our governments complains loudly, offers a few largely irrelevant sanctions and talk sternly at meetings. For non-nato baltic states - velcome back comrades.
aircooled wrote: Relax. He's trying to reclaim his "empire" not rule the world.
I hate to be this guy, but what the hell.
All Germany wanted was Austria.
Until it wanted Czechoslovakia. And Poland. And so on.
I hope this is all blown out of proportion, of course. Making a stand over Ukraine sounds pretty risky, but we know that appeasement doesn't guarantee "peace for our time" either.
aircooled wrote: Also of note: The Russians aren't "invading". Reports talk about a couple thousand troops. I can assure you, the Russian army is a LOT larger then that. This is more the lines of "sending some troops to help the Vietnamese fight off the communist scourge".
2000 troops crossed with 20k in reserve sitting just across the border, mobilized and ready to roll. That's a pretty large deployment.
Certainly. But if they wanted to "invade" they would send a mass of troops through and just take the place (which the could easily do). They are clearly doing a bit of "force balancing" (to give there side a bit of an edge of course) much as the US did for a number of years in Vietnam.
The fact that they are not really trying to hide it anymore is new, but it's not like everyone didn't know all along anyway.
I suspect what they are looking for is a to commit as little as possible to get the conclusion they want. That way they can still deny a bit they they invaded (just helping) and make it look more like an internal thing.
If you want to use history as a predictor here, I think it is more appropriate to look more towards Vietnam and Iraq then Sudetenland.
Dammit, I don't wanna get drafted into WW3.
Off subject a bit, but is there any good documentary on WWI or WWII on Netflix?
You'll need to log in to post.
