General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: U-boat crews/Sexuality ? - no smut replies
Posted by:
Yuri IL\'IN
()
Date: April 22, 2001 04:32PM
<HTML>Hi
It is necessary clearly to present essential differences in sights on war and world and on the European safety at the main countries of the European continent.
For Germany are characteristic brightly expressed aggressive tendentions. First of all it concerns revision of the results of the WW1 and situation when behind state borders there was a significant number of the Germans. HÃ… disappears, that the revision of the results of the WW1 will be only begining. HÃ…ÃÀÓÃÄÕËÃßÃà of conducting of annexationist policy is explained by a lack of a resources at Germany. Including sowing areas. If the remedies loiter on a preparation for war are directed to an agriculture, Germany beyond any reasonable doubt not only completely has provided itself with food, but also could turn into of the large exporter of food, as it happened after the WW2. War expensive occupancy. The resources is much easier and more cheaply for extracting by other ways.
Italy aspirations also are extremely expressed to convert country into new Roman Empire when the Mediterranean becomes an internal Italian basin. The aspiration is more grounded on emotions than on substantial requirements and possibilities of country aspiration to conducting aggressive policy directed on destabilization of the order, existing in Europe.
Besides not forget, that Poland and Finland those years conducted completely clearly expressed and formulated on a state level aggressive in the relation USSR policy having concerning this country the significant territorial claims. HÃ… having possibilities is self-supporting to conduct aggressive war against USSR they by all forces aspired to to destabilize the world in Europe and to realize aggressive tendentions of other countries. Thus their interests coincided with interests Germany and Italy.
The management of Spain after on the eve of war to power has come Ex, and appreciably with the connivance Great Britain and France and at alive participation of Germany and Italy, in the ideological relation was close to the management Germany and Italy conducting aggressive policy. However objective interests of this country consist in preservation of repeatability on the European continent. Besides economy and the finance of Spain was undermined by civil war and country was simply be not capable to conduct aggressive policy with usage of military force.
The fear before a possibility of a remilitarization Germany and attempt of its revenge for a defeat in the WW1 is characteristic for France in this years. The main direction of policy France begins aspiration to not suppose transmission gain Germany. For France the aspiration is characteristic to gain the reliable allies on a case of war.
Great Britain does not see the special perils in some transmission gain Germany. She does not aim at an alliance with France. The purpose of Great Britain is faster alliance of all large European states. The government takes into account proof anti-war moods of the inhabitants of Great Britain.
USSR during this period had no neither possibility nor desire for change of existing position of things in Europe. Komintern was not the instrument for accomplishment of world revolution, and instrument of the Soviet external policy. As soon as has disappeared necessity for the similar instrument Komintern was liquidated. In the Soviet agenda world revolution any more did not appear. The policy USSR was directed on preservation existing in that time in country ploting. Those years Stalin called Komintern \"grocery shop\", and world revolution - \"idiotic slogan\". USSR required the long-term peace period for conducting renovation of economy and consequently was interested not in collision, and in cooperation with foreign European countries.
Thus at an objective sight on position in Europe it becomes completely clear, that two groups of the states there countered each other. On the one hand of Germany, Italy with such countrys as Poland and Finland at silent condoling of Spain interested in aggression and war. On the other hand Great Britain, France and USSR interested in preservation in Europe of that order and that position of things which there existed.
The Soviet external policy had the brightly expressed anti-nazi directivity, and for its accomplishment USSR was ready to be pooled with France and Great Britain. Contrary to all efforts of the Soviet diplomacy vitally peace policy, necessary for country, USSR has not called trust, and invokings Litvinov to make League of nations by substantial force for maintenance of collective security the France and Great Britain were estimated as attempts to involve them in war.
Paranoia of policy of Great Britain and France was apparent. Not looking on objective need for cooperation with USSR western countries saw in Russia threat to the world and repeatabilities, that has made to impossible creation of the anti-nazi block. Moreover, some chiefs had hopes, that of Germany will crush of their natural ally USSR. It already resembles clinic. The management of Great Britain and France for a preservation of peace in Europe was ready to forget and to forgive to the Hitler and Mussolini and remilitarization of the Rhine area, and Abissinia, and Spain, and Czechoslovakia, but did not wish to forgive USSR of sins which that did not commit and did not plan to commit. It inevitably has resulted that to a beginning of war in Europe the Soviet Union already had doubts concerning policy of collective security and possibilities to adjust cooperation with the natural allies in Europe before the person of nazi aggression because of paranoia of their policy to the detriment of own interests.
The roots conducting to similar unreasonable policy probably lay not in a formation which in that time existed, not in adherence of the Soviet management to communist ideas, and in more penetrating ethnopsihological problems which were piled in Europe within centuries as a result of collision of various cultures and sights on a broad circle of questions. The sight France and Great Britain on USSR was partly similar to anti-Semitism when repulsiv of another\'s culture is explained not by objective reasons, and irrational motives not finding any reasonable explanation even to the detriment of own interests. That fact, that the not so communist philosophy was an obstacle for approach of western countries with Russia testifies for example that after in Russia the ideological orienting points policy of western countries in relation to this country have changed has not undergone essential changes. The Soviet policy on the eve of war differed by a sober estimation of countering forces and was in a high degree pragmatic. USA were to a lesser degree subject to \"anti-Semitism\" in comparison with the European democracies, and the reasonableness and pragmatics of their policy connect America with Russia, that in combination to absence any national and ethnocultur inconsistencies allowed to consider them as natural associates before the person of nazi aggression.
USSR was not interested in war between Germany and Great Britain. If such war became inevitability, USSR was not interested in victory of Germany i.e. such victory inevitably left Russia one on one with countries of an axis. Probably in case of successes of the German Army and Navy USSR would search of the ally on behalf of USA to counter to the German hegemony in Europe, since it was deadly dangerous to USSR.
On the other hand to hope for change of a political course Germany there are no bases. The similar change of a course is possible only under condition of support of army and population. In that time it could not achieve by plots. Testifies also to it that the conspirators did not manage to replace the management even in one much heavier and difficult in every respect situations.
From here completely conclusion naturally arises, that the world in Europe in that time was simply inconceivable without USSR and value of policy of that country then for fates of Europe had prime value.
REMARC: Private, but as it seems a characteristic example ethnocultures relations.
On a site of Baltic Academy of a Defense in Estonia the references on many defenᏠsites of the world not only NATO, but Sweden and Switzerland are specified. There is even a reference to a site of the ministry of foreign of Iceland arranged very far from Estonia and not having army. Probably founders of a site believed, that to east from Estonia the deserted taiga up to China extends, and to north from the Black sea only rare come across Gunes not having of computers since the references on Russian and Ukrainian defenᏠsites are absent completely . Estonia not belong to NATO, only prepare. Russia is frontier with Estonia country and the communism on which would be possible to fallen with the bad relation there for a long time is not present. On the other hand at such old participant NATO as Greece the official site of Airforse is carried out on Greek, English and Russian.
Concretely concerning Poland.
If Germany and USSR have committed collateral aggression against Poland, why Great Britain and France have declared war to Germany and began to search for the ally on behalf of USSR? Why Great Britain and France have not declared war to USSR?
I can answer this question. When the Polish government was abandoned Poland having thrown the Polish people, Russia has deduced the troops on border between Russia and Poland which was defined by the Versailles agreement 1919. It is border between Poland and Russia both Great Britain and France considered legitim. For this reason action of Russia has not called oppositions from their party.
(be continued)
Regards,
Yuri IL\'IN
Moscow Russia
</HTML>
It is necessary clearly to present essential differences in sights on war and world and on the European safety at the main countries of the European continent.
For Germany are characteristic brightly expressed aggressive tendentions. First of all it concerns revision of the results of the WW1 and situation when behind state borders there was a significant number of the Germans. HÃ… disappears, that the revision of the results of the WW1 will be only begining. HÃ…ÃÀÓÃÄÕËÃßÃà of conducting of annexationist policy is explained by a lack of a resources at Germany. Including sowing areas. If the remedies loiter on a preparation for war are directed to an agriculture, Germany beyond any reasonable doubt not only completely has provided itself with food, but also could turn into of the large exporter of food, as it happened after the WW2. War expensive occupancy. The resources is much easier and more cheaply for extracting by other ways.
Italy aspirations also are extremely expressed to convert country into new Roman Empire when the Mediterranean becomes an internal Italian basin. The aspiration is more grounded on emotions than on substantial requirements and possibilities of country aspiration to conducting aggressive policy directed on destabilization of the order, existing in Europe.
Besides not forget, that Poland and Finland those years conducted completely clearly expressed and formulated on a state level aggressive in the relation USSR policy having concerning this country the significant territorial claims. HÃ… having possibilities is self-supporting to conduct aggressive war against USSR they by all forces aspired to to destabilize the world in Europe and to realize aggressive tendentions of other countries. Thus their interests coincided with interests Germany and Italy.
The management of Spain after on the eve of war to power has come Ex, and appreciably with the connivance Great Britain and France and at alive participation of Germany and Italy, in the ideological relation was close to the management Germany and Italy conducting aggressive policy. However objective interests of this country consist in preservation of repeatability on the European continent. Besides economy and the finance of Spain was undermined by civil war and country was simply be not capable to conduct aggressive policy with usage of military force.
The fear before a possibility of a remilitarization Germany and attempt of its revenge for a defeat in the WW1 is characteristic for France in this years. The main direction of policy France begins aspiration to not suppose transmission gain Germany. For France the aspiration is characteristic to gain the reliable allies on a case of war.
Great Britain does not see the special perils in some transmission gain Germany. She does not aim at an alliance with France. The purpose of Great Britain is faster alliance of all large European states. The government takes into account proof anti-war moods of the inhabitants of Great Britain.
USSR during this period had no neither possibility nor desire for change of existing position of things in Europe. Komintern was not the instrument for accomplishment of world revolution, and instrument of the Soviet external policy. As soon as has disappeared necessity for the similar instrument Komintern was liquidated. In the Soviet agenda world revolution any more did not appear. The policy USSR was directed on preservation existing in that time in country ploting. Those years Stalin called Komintern \"grocery shop\", and world revolution - \"idiotic slogan\". USSR required the long-term peace period for conducting renovation of economy and consequently was interested not in collision, and in cooperation with foreign European countries.
Thus at an objective sight on position in Europe it becomes completely clear, that two groups of the states there countered each other. On the one hand of Germany, Italy with such countrys as Poland and Finland at silent condoling of Spain interested in aggression and war. On the other hand Great Britain, France and USSR interested in preservation in Europe of that order and that position of things which there existed.
The Soviet external policy had the brightly expressed anti-nazi directivity, and for its accomplishment USSR was ready to be pooled with France and Great Britain. Contrary to all efforts of the Soviet diplomacy vitally peace policy, necessary for country, USSR has not called trust, and invokings Litvinov to make League of nations by substantial force for maintenance of collective security the France and Great Britain were estimated as attempts to involve them in war.
Paranoia of policy of Great Britain and France was apparent. Not looking on objective need for cooperation with USSR western countries saw in Russia threat to the world and repeatabilities, that has made to impossible creation of the anti-nazi block. Moreover, some chiefs had hopes, that of Germany will crush of their natural ally USSR. It already resembles clinic. The management of Great Britain and France for a preservation of peace in Europe was ready to forget and to forgive to the Hitler and Mussolini and remilitarization of the Rhine area, and Abissinia, and Spain, and Czechoslovakia, but did not wish to forgive USSR of sins which that did not commit and did not plan to commit. It inevitably has resulted that to a beginning of war in Europe the Soviet Union already had doubts concerning policy of collective security and possibilities to adjust cooperation with the natural allies in Europe before the person of nazi aggression because of paranoia of their policy to the detriment of own interests.
The roots conducting to similar unreasonable policy probably lay not in a formation which in that time existed, not in adherence of the Soviet management to communist ideas, and in more penetrating ethnopsihological problems which were piled in Europe within centuries as a result of collision of various cultures and sights on a broad circle of questions. The sight France and Great Britain on USSR was partly similar to anti-Semitism when repulsiv of another\'s culture is explained not by objective reasons, and irrational motives not finding any reasonable explanation even to the detriment of own interests. That fact, that the not so communist philosophy was an obstacle for approach of western countries with Russia testifies for example that after in Russia the ideological orienting points policy of western countries in relation to this country have changed has not undergone essential changes. The Soviet policy on the eve of war differed by a sober estimation of countering forces and was in a high degree pragmatic. USA were to a lesser degree subject to \"anti-Semitism\" in comparison with the European democracies, and the reasonableness and pragmatics of their policy connect America with Russia, that in combination to absence any national and ethnocultur inconsistencies allowed to consider them as natural associates before the person of nazi aggression.
USSR was not interested in war between Germany and Great Britain. If such war became inevitability, USSR was not interested in victory of Germany i.e. such victory inevitably left Russia one on one with countries of an axis. Probably in case of successes of the German Army and Navy USSR would search of the ally on behalf of USA to counter to the German hegemony in Europe, since it was deadly dangerous to USSR.
On the other hand to hope for change of a political course Germany there are no bases. The similar change of a course is possible only under condition of support of army and population. In that time it could not achieve by plots. Testifies also to it that the conspirators did not manage to replace the management even in one much heavier and difficult in every respect situations.
From here completely conclusion naturally arises, that the world in Europe in that time was simply inconceivable without USSR and value of policy of that country then for fates of Europe had prime value.
REMARC: Private, but as it seems a characteristic example ethnocultures relations.
On a site of Baltic Academy of a Defense in Estonia the references on many defenᏠsites of the world not only NATO, but Sweden and Switzerland are specified. There is even a reference to a site of the ministry of foreign of Iceland arranged very far from Estonia and not having army. Probably founders of a site believed, that to east from Estonia the deserted taiga up to China extends, and to north from the Black sea only rare come across Gunes not having of computers since the references on Russian and Ukrainian defenᏠsites are absent completely . Estonia not belong to NATO, only prepare. Russia is frontier with Estonia country and the communism on which would be possible to fallen with the bad relation there for a long time is not present. On the other hand at such old participant NATO as Greece the official site of Airforse is carried out on Greek, English and Russian.
Concretely concerning Poland.
If Germany and USSR have committed collateral aggression against Poland, why Great Britain and France have declared war to Germany and began to search for the ally on behalf of USSR? Why Great Britain and France have not declared war to USSR?
I can answer this question. When the Polish government was abandoned Poland having thrown the Polish people, Russia has deduced the troops on border between Russia and Poland which was defined by the Versailles agreement 1919. It is border between Poland and Russia both Great Britain and France considered legitim. For this reason action of Russia has not called oppositions from their party.
(be continued)
Regards,
Yuri IL\'IN
Moscow Russia
</HTML>
