1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Koenigsberg -> Kaliningrad -> why still Russian ?

Discussion in 'World History' started by kiwitt, Sep 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton King, Warrior, Prophet, Magician, Lover

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,158
    I don't find it strange it all (though the info about the offer caught me by surprise as well).
    Mass deportation was not very popular anymore back then. But this would have been the only option to make this area actually attractive.
    A run down area full of poor Russians - the only worth detectable is of an sentimental kind. Realpolitiks on the other hand say: Don't even think about it!

    I said it hurts to see what this place has become. But when Germany had the chance to reach out again, it already was what it was.
    Well the SU could just not have decided to shift Poland 200 kilometers into the West.
     
  2. Squonk

    Squonk Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,504
    Location:
    Poland
    Yes, that I forgot to add: the more territory Poland got from Germany, the more dependent on USSR it was to keep it.

    SiLL: there was a chance that Lower Silesia (or its half) or Pomerania remained german. Nobody contemplated the idea to let Germany keep Prussia, though, mostly because of that the existance of this exclave was one of the excuses for starting the war by Germany.



    I think the situation of polish gouverment in exile was tragic. The four main centers of polish culture were Warszawa, Lwow, Krakow, Wilno, one may add Poznan to that. Warsaw was destroyed, and out of remaining three (or four) two were to be lost. Half of territory! It's not something one agrees to easily. Also because most of the soldiers of general Anders that came from USSR through Middle East to fight in Italy etc were people from these exact territories. Also, Roosevelt officially supported pre-war polish borders, even when he's already agreed to let Stalin keep his 1939 gains. So they didn't know the real situation and that they don't really have USA on their side.

    And they didn't believe in large gains in the west, apart from Opole Silesia and Prussia, and tiny bits elsewhere. Nor did they want them, because they weren't aware of the "possibility" to get rid of Germans from there...

    And if you think that Stalin would have "left" the London gouverment stay in Poland, well, I'd call that a naivety. Why would he let out Poland, which was completely at his hands? Do you think that the elections wouldn't have been forged by the communists, as they were, if polish gouverment in exile was more lenient? Polish prime minister in exile actually returned to Poland and attempted to work out relationships with the communists. Well, it didn't work out.
     
  3. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,871
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    That's correct, Poland bordered with the SU, Stalin would never have let us become neutral, or worse (for him), allied with the U.S.
     
  4. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    Haha, try getting it back sucka's!

    (Plus the area was originally Slavic anyway, before the mass German colonization)

    Anyway, Kalingrad is Russian because it is Russian, today anyway.

    Now, if only after Grunwald we continued to Marienburg... :think: then there would be so much less issues. :p
     
  5. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
    Considering that Britain didn't want to weaken Germany too much - they considered it a potential brake on Soviet expansionism - the Lwow government certainly did depend on the USSR to push through those territorial gains.

    The original head of the London government (he was a general, though his name escapes me; as anyone who has spoken to me on these boards knows by now, I'm terrible with names) had agreed to give the eastern half of his country to the USSR. He understood that sovereignty mattered more than territorial integrity. The idiotic hotheads who succeeded him did not.

    Roosevelt paid lip service to Polish territorial claims to gain support from Polish-Americans, but really didn't care about them. You'll note he was most vocal in his support of Poland in the lead-up to the 1944 election. Unfortunately for the London government, they didn't know he was jerking their chain.

    Agreed.

    Why would he surrender control of Austria, which was completely at his hands? Austria was neutralised; so long as Stalin didn't see it as a threat and maintained some limited control over its actions he was happy to let it go. Now, granted, Poland is another story; Stalin considered it a threat - unlike Austria - both because of Polish-Russian enmity and the chance of German assaults through Poland. I doubt Stalin would have let it remain independent. But the precedent exists - in Austria, Yugoslavia, Finland and even Romania - for an Eastern European government to pursue independent policies. Poland needed to maximise its potential to maintain sovereignty. It foolishly did not. That's on their heads. They antagonised Stalin when they should have appeased him; by the time they changed their tune it was far too late to avoid a communist takeover.

    He certainly wouldn't have allowed it to ally itself with the US and/ or UK. But the possibility of a neutral nation, on par with Austria or Finland, did exist. Poland should have pursued this chance with every weapon at their disposal; instead, they wasted the opportunity on chucking a hissy-fit over the Katyn Massacre and the eastern territories. Even an alliance with the USSR would have been preferable to being made a satellite.
     
  6. Squonk

    Squonk Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,504
    Location:
    Poland
    No, it was originally baltic (prussian), if you are referring to Eastern Prussia.

    Not necessarily to "push through", because I doubt it was their idea.
    Also, what's "Lwow gouverment"?

    General Sikorski didn't agree to let go the eastern half. Nor any other member of the London gouverment. He simply agreed to cooperate with Soviets without formally settling the issue of what the eastern borders should be.
    This cooperation was terminated by Soviets when London Gouverment asked Red Cross for examination of Katyn graves

    I wouldn't refer to it as "claims", but rather "territorial integrity". And yes, that's precisely what I'm talking about. He deceived the polish gouverment so that Poles would vote for him in elections.


    Why? Firstly because it was not "completely at his hands", he occupied merely eastern edge of it.
    Spoiler :




    Secondly, Austria is much smaller and less significant itself

    Thirdly, he occupied part of Germany WEST to Poland. And if there was a confrontation with the West, it'd be around Germany. So he needed his supply lines in hands he could trust.

    No it didn't. the gouverment in exile did return to Czechoslovakia. Did it become a neutral nation or an "ally" of USSR?

    The London gouverment did overlook the attack of USSR in 1939; the forceful expulsion of its citizens to Siberia and Kazakhstan; it's hard to say it made a great fuss about Katyn. It just wanted international investigation. It's hard to say how it would act if it was confirmed that Soviets were responsible. Perhaps it'd continue the cooperation. In any case, they didn't break it, USSR did.
    And if you think that disagreement on ceding half of territory is something unowrthy of "chucking a hissy - fit", I am surprised.

    Yugoslavia is a very different matter, it wasn't controlled by Red Army after ww2 - Germans never really controlled it well because of the mountains there, and it was to a large extent liberated by Tito himself. Romania got more independent only after some decades.
     
  7. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    Silesia I was referring to.

    Dunno bout East Prussia, but prior to German Colonization, there were slavic tribes living in Pomerania as well though.
     
  8. Lithuanian!

    Lithuanian! Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    My English is not so good but I will try to explain one interesting thing.

    Stalin was having plan B for Koenigsberg if allies wont accept that Soviet Union annex this region. Stalin was prepare historical documents about Lithuania rights in that region. But allies didn't tell anything, so it just become part of Russia.
    I believe everything would be a same, just at this day Lithuania would have south west region full of failed Russian colonists...
     
  9. Hawe Hawe

    Hawe Hawe Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    Friedrichshain
    Sorry, but why such an aggressive comment? This attitude is exactly what produced too many conflicts during the eras of nationalism from 1800 til now in central europe. In these areas over hundreds of years cultural influences were steadily changing and merging. If you start counting, who owned which area at which period you'll never reach the necessary end to this. Before the slavic tribes settling in todays east german regions for example germanic tribes (the goths) inhabited large areas of todays poland. Today these arguments are not reasonable anymore.
    Very few people in germany today have any ambition to return east prussia or silesia back to germany, absolutely absurd imagination! But you can't accuse or blame the germans for having strong sentimental feelings towards these regions. Many have ancestors there, silesia an prussia had a german cultural history since medieval times and heavily influenced german history, and even today the area is full of german architecture and settlements. That's a fact, and it's another fact that these areas are polish, russian or lithuanian today. Either you accept both sides or it remains backwarded national chauvinsm.
     
  10. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    If you couldn't tell, I was playing. :)

    I don't want Poland to have East Prussia either. Russia can keep it, it's poor and backwards compared to our land, and it would just be another burden.

    I get Germany's sentiments to the area. Us Poles have similar sentiments to Lwow/Brest/Grodno/Kaunas/Vilnius.

    As for the architecture, well most of it is gone/ruined. Blame the commies. :p
     
  11. Aquila SPQR

    Aquila SPQR Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    504
    Location:
    Central Europe
    Map of Europe according to German "Deutsche Bahn" website:



    :)

    It should stay Russian. I don't care about it and so all people I know.
     
  12. Pokurcz

    Pokurcz Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,139
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Karlstad, Sweden
    An important fact about Stalins relationship to Poland is his personal failures during the war between Communist Russia and Poland in 1920.
    He had personal reasons for taking revenge, and grabbing the eastern parts of Poland after WW2, that were part of the post WW1 conflict, was a way of getting it.
     
  13. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    Kaliningrad is the visual representation of what communism would have made the rest of Europe look like. Never forget.
     
  14. civ-addicted

    civ-addicted King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Location:
    The City of the Lion
    Don't you dare! You know what happened last time!
    Just saying:mischief:
    And before that, there has been no "germanic" or "slavic", just "indoeuropean" (which is called "indogermanic" in german:lol:).

    Don't bother, no German really gives a rat's ass.
     
  15. Squonk

    Squonk Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,504
    Location:
    Poland
    This map is just a theory. Based to a large extent on ideas of XIX-century german nationalist historians. We don't really know what was happening there before Slavs. We have remains of cultures, but attaching them to specific ethnic groups is not sure, to say the least. Of all germanic tribes, there are some remains of Goths there, but they only passed through on their way from Scandinavia to SE.

    Anyway, this map clearly shows Prussia as NOT inhabited by germanic tribes, so you've shot your own foot. Although, as I've mentioned, TLO's opinion is also false, because Prussia was inhabited by Prussians, who were tribes related to modern Lithuanians and Latvians.
     
  16. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,205
    Location:
    Scotland
    Out of interest, do you genuinely believe that anyone here thinks that Europe was sorely in need of Stalinism? Or are you just trying to meet some sort of quota for right-wing clichés? :huh:
     
  17. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    You know, I think I like getting PC+1 instead of having a +rep button. So: thank you, somebody else says this too!
    Assuming, of course, that the Goths in fact did go that way. I've always been kind of dubious about the identification of Goths with the Przeworsk material culture, and extremely dubious about the veracity of Jordanes on these foundation myths.
     
  18. civ-addicted

    civ-addicted King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Location:
    The City of the Lion
    If you've read his post, you've noticed that he wasn't speaking about Prussia either.
    But seriously: What made you think that everything you learned isn't based on the ideas of polish nationalists?
    Somehow, everthing you learn in school is based on kinda-nationalist ideas. I find it strange that americans think Charlemagne was french. And a real Baguette-eating, red-wine-drinking and cursing-on-america french. I've learned in school that he was rather german, while i personally think that at that point of time you couldn't really tell germans from french, so Charlemagne was basically both. Germans grow up think Goethe was the greatest author ever, french think that about Hugo or Balzac and americans about Marc Twain. Have you noticed what's going on? Who's right?
    Let's rest that matter, though i'd like to see the polish point of view on that issue (if it comes to history). PM me if necessary. It's about Königsberg area in this thread.
    I just couldn't resist because of that "Try get it back":lol:
     
  19. Squonk

    Squonk Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,504
    Location:
    Poland
    Ah, true, my mistake, it was about Silesia. Sorry, TLO, sorry, civ-a.

    Well, the traditional polish point of view is autochtonist, which is that the cultures that existed here were slavic ones. And that, in fact, Poland together with western Belarus and Ukraine is the craddle of Slavs. Their original location, and they expanded from here.

    The view I've presented stands in between: we don't really know what was happening here before VI-VII century, when Slavs are already here. We don't really know when Slavs came here. Or where exactly was their craddle wherefrom they expanded.
     
  20. AtlantaMarty

    AtlantaMarty No longer active

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    There's no reason for me to stay here
    It should be returned to Germany.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page