Hi, Robert Bashe!
I read your message from 18.08.2017 19:50

  RB>>> Russia wasn't Russia after WWI. Lenin gave up large swaths of
  RB>>> territorty to the Germans at Tannenberg. That was Lenin's method
  RB>>> to end the war and keep his own people quiet.

  ak>> The USSR appeared only in 1923. Lenin had no choice when singing
  ak>> the peace treaty - the army almost stopped to exit and would not
  ak>> be able to resist either Germany or Poland.

  RB> You conveniently forget the role Trotzky played in beating down
  RB> the "Whites". And "no choice"?? Just because the Tsar was a lousy
  RB> strategist and his generals incompetent doesn't mean Lenin could
  RB> have done no better, but he was more interested in establihing his
  RB> own power.

At that time Lenin had a good reason to expect Russian style revolutions 
across all Europe. So in "piece for any price" there was some calculation.

  RB>  As for "resistinbg Poland", you also conveniently forgt
  RB> the history of the country. Not Poland, but Germany declared war on
  RB> the Russians after the incompetent Tsar mobilized the armed forces
  RB> to help the Serbs.

I know history. Poland shamelessly used German's gains of Russia's 
territory, after Germany was defeated in WW1.

  ak>> Hitler in Germany was inevitable -- such people always appear when
  ak>> a strong nation is greatly humiliated, as was Germany after WW1.

  RB> Nice attempt at justification. Now just consider the situation if
  RB> Hitler had been assissinated in 1924. A replacement? Who?

Yes, by killing a man it is possible to prevent many things to happen. 
But killing does not cancel the phrase about inevitability. It just 
means that people must be killed in time. ;=)

  ak>> The USSR and the Soviet ideology was the only chance to stop the
  ak>> Nazi Germany. Western impotent nations were worthless in WW2. They
  ak>> entered the war when Germany was actually defeated by the USSR.

  RB> That old saw again. You and Ward should get together sometims and
  RB> slap each other on the back. Belgium and the USSR of 1940
  RB> coud "surely" have defeated Hitler .

Don't know what you mean.

  RB>>>>> I suppose that's why there was a secret addendum to the
  RB>>>>> Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty allowing Germany and Russia to split
  RB>>>>> up Poland between themselves.

  ak>>>> It depends from point of view. IMO Poland was captured by
  ak>>>> Hitler, but the USSR returned its own territories.

  RB> "Point of view"? It's now availble as a black and white protocol.
  RB> Read it sometime to find out what really happened. Forget the
  RB> propaganda circulating in present Russia - but if you do, don't
  RB> talk about the facts. That could get you into prison or even
  RB> murdered.

Well, consider that situation, as it was:
Hitler said to Stalin (via Ribbentrop), "I want to capture Poland for 
its bad behavior and return back old German territories. Would you like 
to take back your Russian old territories or I will capture them too?"

You of course think it would have been better if Stalin would said, "Oh, 
no! I can't take back old Russian territories because it is unlawful, so 
dear Adolf take them all!"  ;=))

  RB>>> Like the Crimea. Except that there was no subtrefuge.

  ak>> There was a good subterfuge -- the Russian people referendum and
  ak>> the way Crimea appeared in Ukraine. The Crimeans started all this
  ak>> mess themselves after the coup in Kiev. Putin had no choice.

  RB> Then Trump now has no choice but to invade Crimea, drive the
  RB> Russians out and restore the national borders of Ukraine. Yeah,
  RB> sure.

Let him help the Arabs. Then the main source of terror in the world will 
be eliminated, and the Americans again would be able to travel around 
the world without fear to be stubbed in all places available. ;-)

Bye, Robert!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.fidonews 2017
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds