What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

What if a gun was (physically, or psychically) put against your head to sign the contract? See, for example, the episode of King Michael's abdication in 1947.
Is that contract a valid contract?

Gen. Dénes

As valid as many others, including - why not, Denes? - Versailles, Trianon, Munchen (1938), Wien (1940) et alii...
The "problem" is that one always fds a reason or a criteria that suits his particulr interest in that particular moment in time; yes, sometimes this criteria is the "gun" or the sword in the balance, but... life ain't fair! And History neither!!!

Well, all contract legislation all around the world state that all parties that enter a contract must do so with free will and under no duress.
That is OK when you buy a holiday package from your travel agent, but not all contracts are serene events - that is why you need lawyers and notaries. Think back to all major contracts you signed in you life and you will quickly realise that there is some form of "pressure" coming from someone or "pressure" to conform with demands imposed by the society. For example, in law marriage is a "contract" - children born out of the "contract" that is marriage are sometimes treated differently in law and by the society - in such cases the society (especially family) and the legal system are effectively placing men and women under some form of duress (or browbeating) to enter that "contract" even though they may not really wish to need to enter - and I do not mean "shotgun weddings" here. What if you have to sell your house because your neighbour is untidy, loud and rowdy? Is that duress? What if you have to sell your house because you are too poor to pay back your bank loans? Is that duress? What if you have to sell your house because it is in such a bad condition that you cannot live in it and you have no funds to fix it? Is that duress? What if you have to sell your house because the commute to your job is too long? Is that duress?
The truth is that all contracts can be challenged in court and if you can prove duress, you win. If you bypass the courts and take "take the law in your own hands" you not only blow up any chance of ever winning a case in court, but you may also end up with a prosecution.
There are winners and losers, sometimes you are ahead, sometimes you are behind.
Radu

Who's gonna prove that USSR was wrong in 1940?
There are things that cannot be undone: not all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot beat the Red Army

Equally, the "other side" can say "Who's gonna prove that Romania was right in 1918?"
For every winner, there is a loser. One's liberation is another's occupation. One's war criminal is another's war hero. One's "CHARGE!" is another's "INCOMING!". There are no "middle grounds", only stalemates.

The point is not that treaties, like contracts , can be challenged in court. The point is that there is no such "court" and I cannot think of any suitable "judge" with enough clout to revert such treaties.

Radu

Finland fought back, and they made a point.
Afterwards they could always say they have been forced to sign...

This post has been edited by Hadrian on November 15, 2011 10:38 pm

Ditto!

@Hadrian: so? Didn't they eventually lose?

Finland fought back, but in 1940 accepted Stalin's demands.
In 1941, they advanced only on the territories they claimed and who were occupied by Soviets. But in 1944, Stalin don't stop his troops on the 1940 line, they marched inland towards Helsinki. Only the battle of Tali Ihantala (July 1944) stopped soviet advance. Because the operation Bagration in Baltics and the fierce German resistance there, Stalin accepted an armistice with Finland. He was very hurried, too, because Allies invaded France at 6 June, and Stalin wanted to seize how much could of Europe.

About Russian path to democracy

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/11...petrolului.html

Oh... About Russia and "western democracy", I have a little dilema in here: how can democracy work in a country with no tradition whatsoever of the "democratic game" - perhaps the only country in the world - with Caucasian, population, that is...
Also, one has to take account of the fact that Russia is even more than huge , with ten time zones inside, from Kaliningrad to Kurile (btw, both of them ancient Russian territories! ).
I'm afraid only time will show us what's going to happen, especially after the oil will be gone!

As usual a very interesting article under the signature of Mr. Negrea! About Russia's rearmament policy, I express my skepticism about her success ... Making a parallel with similar policies led by Stalin in the '30s who led to ... the military catastrophe of 1941, or Brezhnev in the '80s who led to... the collapse of USSR in 1991!

Russian ambassador to Moldova:

Cheaper natural gas if Moldova joins Russia-Belarus customs union.

http://www.publika.md/valeri-kuzmin--moldo...rus_591481.html

There still is a large number of theories about this particular catastrophe, but let's not forget who won the war eventually; also, how the "communism" has been exported world-wide after WWII!

@Imperialist: the Russian ambassador has shown a little piece of the carrot; the stick will be shown later, when necessary!

This post has been edited by MMM on December 02, 2011 08:56 pm

About Russian unrest and Moldova:

http://bogatu.voceabasarabiei.net/?p=1814

http://bogatu.voceabasarabiei.net/?p=1817

I express my skepticism about the weakness of Russia, of Putin's power, after the unprecedented large protests in Moskow! Do not confuse Russia with Egypt, Putin with Mubarak! I see a greater resemblance to Gaddafi and let's admit that without Western help, Libya would be led even today by Gaddafi and his clan! Remember how was the situation on the battlefield before the NATO air attacks!

About Russian's attempt to restore the empire

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/12...imperiului.html