Suvorov books, ww-2

You forget just one thing. In those times, as you said, Russia also felt that had owned etc. This is false. Russia, or Soviet Union, don't had any point of view about all those things. The only point of view was Stalin's point of view. If Stalin want's to claim North Pole, Canada, Antarctica or anything else, an entire army of historians, writers, journalists, commisaires and anybody else would fill tomes of justifications about those claims. So, you can't say that SU felt that... as you said, only Stalin did. Or, Stalin don't need any justification for every act of agression he wants.

I fully agree with the view expressed by contras. For the period 1940-1947 Stalin's desire was entirely relevant for USSR foreign policy about Romania and Bassarabia!

Naaah, that just does not make sense!

If Stalin "lusted" for Romania, he would have taken it. He would have taken the whole lot of it. Border to border. He had the opportunity to do so in 1940 and agan in 1944. As you said, there was no one to stop him!

Instead, Russia took from Romania ONLY the pieces of territory that Russia owned at some time in the past. The truth is that they were driven by the same style of nationalism that drives this argument: "It was mine at some time in the past, it is mine!".

Radu

Bukovina? Hertza? REALLY?
Still, Germany prevented the USSR from taking "back" (so you say...) the entire Bukovina! And Hertza was taken for purely strategical reasons...

You are wrong. Stalin claim just Bassarabia, just it was written in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but instead he wants to take Bukovina the same, one land that Russian's never owned (how you explain this?). Hitler was upset, but he can't put some presure against Russians, because in the same time, his forces were in France (France surrender just 4 days before the ultimatum). Taking account about Hitler's upset, Stalin reduced his claims just for Northern Bukovina. The same, never owned by Russians. How you explain this? By the same desire, or dreams about the lands they owned in the past?

The part of Bukovina taken by the Russians was never part of Romania until 1918. It was part of Romania only from 1918 until 1940. If you look at the maps, the Russians respected the Eastern borders of King Carol I Romania.
Radu

You are wrong again. Until 1775, Bukovina was part of Kingdom of Moldavia, don't pretend you don't know this. Russia never owned this land, so, go back to your previos state, how could URSS claim this land? And Herta? How you said earlier:

And, Radu, please don't go around the bush! Just answer that qouestion!

Let us not be pedantic. If we want to take distant past periods as times of "prior possession, then according to Wikipedia, during the "Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774, the russian Empire occupied Bukovina between December 1769 and September 1774. So there! "Prior possession" by Russia! Does this answer your "question"?

Bukovina was part of the "Kingdom of Moldova" until 1775, you say? But after?
When Romania appeared as a state (union, King Carol, etc.), Bukovina belonged to the Austro-hungarian empire. Romania only got it 1918.

Your question did not warrant an answer. Are you challenging me on the statement that "Russia took lands it owned before" on the basis that "they never owned Bukovina"? Come on! Romania did not own it before 1918 so we may allow Stalin a bit of greed. You want me to say that you "win" on that point? Fine! Have it! It proves nothing. But the big point, the "elephant in the room" is the fact that, as YOU stated, "Stalin could have had any land he wanted" yet he did not take all of Romania - instead he stopped at the eastern border of pre-1918 Romania. In light of that, Stalin was actually a model of restraint.

Radu

[QUOTE]But the big point, the "elephant in the room" is the fact that, as YOU stated, "Stalin could have had any land he wanted" yet he did not take all of Romania - instead he stopped at the eastern border of pre-1918 Romania. In light of that, Stalin was actually a model of restraint. smile.gif[/QUOTE]

Come on! You know that just one thing restrained Stalin's greed for lands. this thing is hitler and Wermacht. He was not still ready to take to many risks in 1940, Hitler moves too quick. and he don't stoped himself at the pre-1918 border, he took Bukovina (northern part) and Herta. and in 24 september 1940 he attacked and occupied somer islands on Danube's arm Chilia.

[/QUOTE]Bukovina was part of the "Kingdom of Moldova" until 1775, you say? But after?
When Romania appeared as a state (union, King Carol, etc.), Bukovina belonged to the Austro-hungarian empire. Romania only got it 1918.[QUOTE]

And, by the way, pleasse don't take me with some kind of words that Romania apeared just only in 1859, and all was before it is not important. Just this I understood with your allegation about prior possesion about Bukovina.

For me, this discussion could end now, because I see it goes nowere. You will look after new arguments to justify your earlier posts, posts where you are wrong, but...

Let us not be pedantic. If we want to take distant past periods as times of "prior possession, then according to Wikipedia, during the "Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774, the russian Empire occupied Bukovina between December 1769 and September 1774. So there! "Prior possession" by Russia! Does this answer your "question"?

Bukovina was part of the "Kingdom of Moldova" until 1775, you say? But after?
When Romania appeared as a state (union, King Carol, etc.), Bukovina belonged to the Austro-hungarian empire. Romania only got it 1918.

Your question did not warrant an answer. Are you challenging me on the statement that "Russia took lands it owned before" on the basis that "they never owned Bukovina"? Come on! Romania did not own it before 1918 so we may allow Stalin a bit of greed. You want me to say that you "win" on that point? Fine! Have it! It proves nothing. But the big point, the "elephant in the room" is the fact that, as YOU stated, "Stalin could have had any land he wanted" yet he did not take all of Romania - instead he stopped at the eastern border of pre-1918 Romania. In light of that, Stalin was actually a model of restraint.

Radu

Both Romanian Principalities were occupied by Russia several times, during the Russian-Turkish wars and the Crimeean War. Bukovina and Herta were a part of historical Moldavia. Radub, you are really way out of line with that!

In the case of Bukovina, not even Molotov (or the Soviet diplomats in Berlin) dared to clam any "historical rights" when confronted by the Germans after the 1940 ultimatum. Their only defence was that they were claiming it as a "compensation", to wich Hitler answered with his utterance to Ribbentrop "I don't accept to be taken as an idiot by the Russians!"

This post has been edited by Agarici on October 25, 2013 09:06 pm

I am not looking for "new arguments" because I am not "arguing".
My point is and has always been the same: Mr Negrea intentionally "forgot" to mention that Russia wanted to return to the 1812 (and 1918) borders. It is THE crucial point and this "tactical" omission makes a mockery of that "article".
Radu

Radub
If you really want to split the hair in four you can say that Russian empire occupied some teritories of Romanian principality of Moldova, then Romanians took them back (as a united country that comprise all former smaller Romanian countries), then URSS want to conquer them again under Stalin

Actually Stalin wanted more than he achieved in summer 1940. Therefore he turned all the East European countries in USSR satellites in 1946/-48! The unlawful possession of a territory that does not give any right to USSR to claim it! And nationalism and imperialism are two distinct notions,
that should be used accordingly! If you compare them, it means that you don't understand neither of them properly!

And this is the "emotive" thing I was talking about.
Let us not descend into a nationalist row.
I am not defending Russia. I am pointing out a simple fact: Russia agreed its south-western borders in 1812 and 1878. Since then they respected that border which still stands to this day. And when Russia acted against Romania's borders, they stopped at the 1812 and 1878 borders. The 1812 Treaty of Bucharest set the borders between Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Romania did not exist as a state then), then the 1878 Treaty of Berlin set the borders between Russia, The Ottoman Empire and Romania. These were treaties so it is wrong to say that Russia did anything "illegal" as long as it stayed on its side of the treaty-agreed borders. And it stayed within that border and still does today. Stalin respected that border even though he had ample opportunity to go well beyond it. That is all.

Wikipedia has a map that shows the changes in Romania's Eastern border since the creation of the state.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romani...n_1859-2010.gif

Mr Negrea "forgot" to mention why Russia insisted on maintaining precisely that border. He is just trying to manipulate you and it works. Don't be a puppet!

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on October 26, 2013 07:29 pm

You are wrong again and again. There are many others who asked you about Bukovina and Herta, you didn't answer, and again you pointed about Stalin who respected borders estabilished in 1812 or 1878.
First, Stalin didn't respected those borders, I'm not the only one who pointed this in the posts. What about Northern Bukovina and Herta? You answered that Russia owned those for 5 years in 18th century, but there are not inside the Russian borders in 1812 or 1878. For you could be OK to sustain your opinion. But it is wrong. You can stand on your opinion as you want, but this don't make ypur opinion correct.
Second, Stalin don't go over Prut River because of Hitler, that don't means that he didn't want to. Can you explain why Stalin ordered the attack on Danube Delata in 25 Octomber 1940? He wanted to preserve the border estabilished from the treaty of Berlin in 1878? Or, the islands that he occupied then were outside that border!
So, whatever you said, is against the reality.