User talk:Nixer/Archive

Hi Nixer,

While I am enjoying our little revert battle, I have to ask you to please improve your basic knowledge of European history. I have corrected you on simple matters of historical fact at least three times. Are you sure you feel qualified to participate in this argument?

Furthermore, I am quite willing to compromise on the exact wording we use to describe the cooperation between Germany and USSR in 1939-1941 years, but I will not agree to passing over it in silence altogether. Balcer 13:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then add information on Germany supported China, USA cooperated with Germany (for instance, IBM machines were used in counting of German and East-European population and Jews), Sweden bombs for Germany and so on. Should we mention all trade between neutral countries? --Nixer 13:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem there. Balcer 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we should do so, especially in this article. But if to do - then with no charge. And in another article. --Nixer 20:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You puzzle me, truly. On the one hand, you want to feature Poland's occupation of Cieszyn (1% of Czech territory by the way) as the event which almost by itself started World War II.

No. This is what was a prelude (I mean seizure of Chechoslovakia - not separately Polish occupation, of course). --Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, you seem to know nothing about the German occupation of Sudetenland in the same year (1938).

I know about this. If you want, I could add information about this.--Nixer 13:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add mention on German occupation of Sudets. I have nothig against. --Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, at the same time, you want to downplay and hide the German-Soviet cooperation in years (1939-1941). Germany was always afraid to fight France and Britain with its eastern flank unsecure, so the Soviet promise not to interfere was the crucial prerequisite for the start of the war.

Heh, The fact that the USSR promised not to start war - was a factor of war? The war already was going. Anyway, this is hypotetical analytics for 'alternative history' book. --Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the pact was signed at the end of August, and the war began immediately on September 1? Coincidence? Balcer 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the war would start anyway. There were many steps to the war: Nazi's coming to power, Munich treaty and so on.--Nixer 20:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the Soviet Union supplied Germany with the raw materials which greatly helped it to fight its war in Western Europe in 1940.

USA supplied Germany not smaller that time :-) --Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, how did American shipments to Germany get past the British naval blockade?Balcer 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know, but in German IBM division were warm. I think US trade with Germany went through neutral countries - Switzerland and Sweden.

What strategic deficit materials did Germany receive from the USSR?--Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right here on Wikipedia, in Soviet-German cooperation article.Balcer 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the digits - it was exchange of raw materials on machenery, plants etc.--Nixer 20:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue about whether this was legal or not under international law, it simply happened and should be mentioned. Plus, the fact that Sweden and other neutral countries in Europe also were essential to German war effort should obviously be mentioned also.--Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then mention that in exchange of raw wood, sand, hay, dung, grain USSR received machinery, steel and other useful in war things, which helped in future battle with Germany.--Nixer 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think German were stupid, and sent the Soviets shiny weapons and steel in exchange for sand, hay and dung? Have you lost your mind? In fact the Soviet Union supplied the Germans with oil and gasoline, essential for conducting modern warfare. German tanks invading France and German planes bombing Britain were using Russian fuel. Balcer 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to search some digits.--Nixer 20:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since you want proof of a military alliance between Germany and USSR, have you ever heard about the history of the German auxiliary cruiser Komet?Balcer 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USSR had not any treaty that prohibited this. USSR suggested alliance with Britain and France, but they refused. So USSR had not any liabilities. There is difference between full neutrality, two-side neutrality and alliance. --Nixer 13:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For crying outloud, of course there was no treaty to stop the USSR from cooperating with Germany? So what? Does this make it justifiable? Balcer 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt Poland trade with Germany? Didnt China trade with Germany in 1939? Didnt Denmark trade with Germany before invasion? Didnt USA trade with Germany before (and, illegally, even after!) 1941? Yes, this was mistake of Stalin, but the same mistake made many countries.--Nixer 20:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Польша и СССР во Второй Мировой

Since you've asked in Russian I thought I should respond in Polish, but I'm not sure if you know that language. --Lysy ^(talk)

Sorry, I thought you're Ukrainian because Ukrainian nationalists' symbol in your profile.--Nixer 20:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point. I'm sure that being Russian you are aware that Soviet propaganda naming cannot be taken for face value. Soviets offered "peace" and prepared aggression at the same time. When they invaded a country, they called it "protection" or "liberation". Similarly here, they've signed an aggresive military alliance, but called it "peace treaty". I don't beleive you can be that naive not to know this. I think you're aware of the secret protocol and if you've read it, I know that Soviets planned dividing Poland between themselves and Germany. The secret protocol is a proof of this. Don't you agree ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May be USSR wanted to return some lands that it had lost during Polish-Soviet War or prepared a war against Germany, - reasons may differ, but this does not matter.--Nixer 20:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it does not matter what the reasons were, it the facts that matter. Do you agree with what I asked above ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It deoes not make USSR a German ally - is what I meant --Nixer 06:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would you call it then ? --Lysy ^(talk) 06:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]