It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But that still doesn't mean the Russians are entitled to forcibly take it back now, part of the internationally acknowleged sovereign nation of Ukraine, just because they ruled the territory in the 18th century. And foremostly, it doesn't make a war of aggression on a neighbouring country legitimate either way. And that's what this clearly is. There is only one aggressor, and that's Russia (or as Putin may envision, the Soviet Union 2.0...or the Russian Empire about 5.0).
No matter what any Q-Anon type Putin huggers may say.
WW2 ended a good while ago but there may still be elderly Japanese soldiers in the jungle somewhere who think otherwise.
Some ultra-right-wingers in Europe or the USA seem to think the war is ongoing.
Anything to justify extreme gun ownership, I suppose.
While I'm with you in general, I think you're straying a bit. Gun legislation (or rather the basically complete lack of it) in the U.S. may be revolting for the entire civilized world, but it has very little to do with international tensions. Especially since the gun-lovers in the U.S., via their Trump admiration, are unlikely to be aggressive against Comrade Vladimir Vladimirovich. After all their idol admires that guy. So, no warmongering here.
Not the gun laws of the US.
Thanks
The last I'll say on it, even though I was only discussing it because of it's links to international tension, is that you should read the second amendment.
According to a certain Vladimir, he's 'cleaning up the mess' left over more than 80 years ago. Hence his nazi rethorics.
As I said, that's what the Russians have been claiming. Yes, it has been occupied by the Russians in the past, as so many other areas have been. But its history has hardly been part of the Russian state-building. It became Russian under Catherine as she expanded her empire. It was part of Kyevan Rus in the middle ages (the founding-state of both Ukraine and Russia, Kiyv's history goes back far further than Moscow's). Hence the move to make it part of the Ukrainian SSR wasn't done by 'a drunk Khrushchev, but rather a logical step. It may also be noted that the Russians have, whenever they managed to occupy Crimea, always tried to eradicate the Tartars who live(d) there.
The Russian claim to both Crimea and Ukraine is a complete falsification of history, in which suddenly Russia is the 'natural heir' to all the territories that even Putin himself claims have been occupied by Russia. Perhaps you remember his statement not too long ago about him restoring Russia 'just like Peter the Great' did, and he fought for 20 years to build his empire.
In other words, just like his austrian/German predecessor, he's been shopping in history to get his most beneficial story for his imperialistic tendencies. Part of it is just to ignore or deny the rights of certain peoples, in this case both Ukrainians and Tartars.
Thanks, and I'm sure you researched this more than I have. Either way, the fact remains that Crimea is part of the internationally recognised area of Ukraine, and even if there might possibly room for discussion left about the way this came about, it doesn't justify a war of aggression by Ukraine's neighbour.
Part of the problem is that people refuse to accept the status quo. Say the Palestinians refuse to accept the state of Israel, say that some (very few now!) Germans still deplore the loss of the eastern territories to Poland (just to state this point again: No sane German politician question the present German-Polish border along the Oder/Odra and Neisse/didn't feel like looking up the Polish name rivers today. But these areas have changed occupation or ownership so often during history, that just about everybody is able to make a claim to them based on that history, provided he chooses his desired moments. We have to stop this, by refusing to accept conquests based on those ideas, at least for the last thirty years or so.
I don't want those formerly German areas of what is now Poland back any more than I think that the Palestinians should be able to reclaim what is now Israel. But I definitely refuse to accept that Russia has any right to annex Ukraine - or parts thereof - just because Catherine the Great and Count Potemkin once integrated it into their empire.
It surprised me that Germany didn't reclaim Kaliningrad to compensat for Russia's claim on Crimea. If anything that claim is far more grounded. But I do understand it might awaken forces rather kept in check.
What is the status quo? Crimea being part of Russia is the current status quo.
Why choose 30 years? Why not pre 1967?
You talk about Palestinians not accepting the state of Israel. But what about Israelis not accepting the state of Palestine?
Every conflict has two sides (at least).
Right. That is the real problem in international relations. I don't support Israel's policy in the Palestinian territories. But if I advocated Israel giving back its own territory to "the Palestinians" (whoever that may be, which is the next problem) just because those Palestinians "owned" it before 1948, I'd have to logically contest the taking over of once-German territoriy east of the Oder-Neisse border by Poland. And that's what no sane being in Germany wants. Based on the agreement of 1970 Germany effectively renounced all claims to those areas to Poland. And I wouldn't know about any but a few very deranged minds that would desire to change anything about this. It's just a fact. What was Eastern Germany then is now Poland. Period.
There has to be a terminating point of reclaiming geographical areas just because they once "belonged" to one national or (as some still use this term, although it's a scientifically false term) racial group, or this spiral will never end. After 50 years or so, that point may be reached.
Still, I don't believe that the 2014 forced occupation of Crimea based on a war of aggression and resulting in the evacuation of Ukrainian nationals qualifies for that. In fact, the Russian attack and occupation of Crimea then very much contravened my opinion above. I'd still say that the Ukrainians are very much justified in trying to remove the occupants, since those haven't had any legal claim to Crimea ever since it was declared Ukrainian territory, based on international law.
(West) Germany gave up what is now the Kaliningrad region for good...quite apart from the fact that Poland is between Germany and what used to be East Prussia. And no, I don't see Germany competing for that territory even under the worst of circumstances, especially not in turn for Russia's claims on Crimea.
I think that about 90+ per cent of today's Germans have at least reluctantly accepted the outcome of WW II, believing that keeping the status quo is the best way... meaning also that there are no claims to former German territories left. The remainder are mostly the same nuts that oppose acceptance of refugees and corona shots, and keep rooting for Putin's Russia.
Maybe you've read it already, but a few days or maybe even a couple of weeks ago there was some activity by a Czech satire website where they claimed that a referendum in the Kaliningrad oblast had been held and determined that it should belong to the Czech Republic...because "Königsberg" (the name of the city until 1945) was named for a Bohemian king (that fact being true, AFAIK.)
But frankly, the Federal Republic of Germany has no territorial claims to any other country whatsoever. Especially not because some raving madman in Moscow is going berserk the other way.
I can imagine it beeing a sensitive topic in Germany and, above all, I'm grateful for the Germans to accept their current borders. But as a political move against Putin it would've made sense, after all the claim holds more water than Russia's claim on the area, or on Crimea. If anything, historically Crimea has just been occupied for a long, long time. Catherine the not-so-Great even called southern Ukraine and Crimea 'New Russia', to underline the colonial status.
As a Belgian, I have always wondered how modern Germans look back on WWII. There's the illegal annexation of Poland and other territories on the one hand, but also the tragedy of the Holocaust on the other. How does Germany process these dark pages of its history today?
I have my own clear example in the Belgian Congo. I am far too young for this sad episode in our country's history to be anything but distant facts in a history book, yet I feel shame and anger because of the many atrocities and crimes committed against the people of Congo by my own countrymen. I teach students of Congolese descent and have formed a good relationship with several of them. We talk about this occasionally, and I have apologized many times. They usually say, with a warm heart, that I am not to blame, but that they can't help thinking us, Belgians, a cruel and aggressive lot, based on stories told by parents and grandparents, and historical accounts. Can't say they are wrong.
So too do I wonder how Germans today, most of whom were born after the war, look back on Hitler's "democratic" rise to power, all the evil done by his regime, and all the chaos in the world today that is still, in some way, a consequence of WWII. For the record, I am just curious; I'm not trying to be provocative. @j_w_pepper knows I respect him, his country and his fellow countrymen a lot.
I think there is a definite resentment about the Polish government (the PiS party, which is pretty much more right wing than all parties over here but one - see below) regarding their sudden idea that they want trillions in reparations for WWII, although (West) Germany rescinded in 1970 all claims to territories east of the Oder (Odra) and Neisse (Nysa) rivers, meaning that 20,000 square kilometers of then-German territory are now part of Poland, and that makes for probably several hundred of billions of damages. But other than that, no relevant person or group here wants that territory back.
Hitler's rise to power (however "democratic") still keeps us wary of extreme right-wing politicians, and none of the established parties collaborates with the closest thing to the Nazis we have now, the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland - AfD), in any way. The AfD gets considerable votes in what used to be the GDR - an area where much of the population grew up under Communism and never learned to appreciate the benefits of democracy. But even there we are talking about maybe 20+ percent of the votes. In the west, they're stuck at single or low double digit percentages. They are not part of any state government anywhere.
I don't believe we are immune to something like that ever happening again. But I do think we are possibly more resilient to that because of our catastrophic past. I'm much more afraid of what will happen in the United States, no later than 2024, than I'm worried about our own democracy.
Well, for me that's rather unlikely, having so many of my better half's family now in my own country, and still beeing worried about those eho are still in Ukraine, my father in-law included. But it will make the whole situation even more volatile, as Trump might back out of support for Ukraine. That would have an enormous impact on Europe as a whole, but also on millions of people depending on Ukrainian grain to survive.
As you can see above, for me personally it's hard to see this 'right direction'. On top of a war which has by now resulted in almost more human suffering than any war except for Vietnam and Korea since WW2, we have another dictator prolonging his stay, and drumming the nationalistic drum s never before in China. The prospects of an invasion are more real than ever before. So, where's this right direction, I'm longing to see it tbh.
There have been many strange things happening during World War II, and here's one of them. Do you know that the first bombing of Berlin was done, not by the RAF, as generally believed, but by the french Navy ? No, I don't mean that a french ship bombed Berlin with a (very) long range cannon, no. But the french navy, even at that time, has an aerial component. In 1939, it purchased three long-range civilian planes, three Farman F223-1, to use as troup transports.However, they were soon converted as long-range bombers.
In june 1940, everything was lost, but as an act of resistance, a naval officer decided to go and bomb Berlin, to give Hitler a taste of his own medecine. So, he took one of those improvised bombers, which had received the name Jules Verne, put in it all the bombs that could fit (eight bombs of 250 kgs and 80 incendiary bombs of 10 kgs), and on june 7th 1940, the plane and its crew of five seamen took flight at night. They arrived at their destination after a long detour, and launched their bombs over Berlin.In fact, they even launched their shoes (probably as stinkbombs), and managed to get back to France.
To say that hitler was not happy with that raid is an understatement. He threated to have the plane's crew executed. It w<ouldn't happen that way. The Jules Verne got a few more bombing missions until the 1940 armisitce (in Germany and Italy), then was relegated to an airport in the south of France until one night, it was burned so as not to fall in german hands.
https://www.histogames.com/HTML/chronologie/articles/0012-berlin-sous-les-bombes-francaises-en-1940.php
I discovered that fact in this graphic novel :
The third in a series, that tells of incredible feats that happened during the wars of the past.
Pretending to be friends.