• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Europe be entirely different now if the two largest EU nations had not invaded Russia?

What's this with the "two largest EU nations" in the thread header anyway?

Indignantly demanding to stay on topic and at the same time defining it so sloppily.o_O
 
You have to question Germany’s commanders in 1941. They had the French example of a little more than 100 years before. Their arrogance thought that they would start in late June and be out before the Russian winter.
 
The two most traumatic events in Russian history were the invasions of their country by France and Germany. Tens of millions of their people died as a result of the unwarranted aggression of France and Germany. Can anyone blame Russia for distancing itself from Western Europe? Have France and German ever apologised for the horrendous loss of life and damage they caused in Russia?

You left out the invasion by the UK and its unwarranted aggression. And what the **** does the EU have to do with any of this?
 
It's interesting to read all this...
I can't speak for all Russians, because there will only be my opinion... I don't need anyone's apologies, neither the French nor the Germans... those who live today have nothing to do with those wars.
Although, of course, the memory of the victims of the Second World War (we call it the Great Patriotic War) is very important for my people.
However, today's attitude to my country is much more important to me.
I, like many of my fellow citizens, am very annoyed when the West begins to make sarcastic jabs at us in propaganda for the Second World War, they claim that we are making a cult of victory... our attitude to the Second World War is our business, it does not concern you... and yes, in the light of the unprecedented number of victims, we are very sensitive to comments. This is a painful topic for us.
 
The two most traumatic events in Russian history were the invasions of their country by France and Germany. Tens of millions of their people died as a result of the unwarranted aggression of France and Germany. Can anyone blame Russia for distancing itself from Western Europe? Have France and German ever apologised for the horrendous loss of life and damage they caused in Russia?

Would Europe be entirely different now if the two largest EU nations had not invaded Russia?​

Sure, Europe would be different...but entirely different?...I doubt it.

Napoleon and Hitler certainly did change life as it was known in Russia. They also changed life as it was known in Europe, too. And Stalin also changed life as it was known in Russia. That's how it goes with dictators.

But you have to be aware that those dictators didn't just spring up out of nowhere. The conditions in Europe and in Russia were the fertile soil that allowed the seeds of dictatorship to sprout and, ultimately, to blossom. If it hadn't been those particular men, someone else would have stepped in and changed life as it was known.

But life goes on, right? What is more important to you? Getting an apology? Or building a better nation for the people of Russia? Will an apology make Russian life better than it is now? Or will having leaders who allow and enable your own citizens to flourish be better?

And one more point...is it really so important to you for the children to be responsible for the sins of the fathers? If so, then ALL of today's children throughout the entire world have a LOT to be responsible for.

Wouldn't it be better to put the tragedies of a hundred or more years in the past behind us and work together for the future?
 
Has France ever apologized for invading England in 1066?

Why not just stick to the thread header?
That wasn't France, as in the French Crown, just one adventurous Duke. Then again we shouldn't be talking about countries in the Middle Ages, it's anachronistic. The kingdoms of that era are not comparable to modern countries. There's a reason people say the State was born in Westphalia (which is debatable).
 
People still cannot believe how unwise Hitler was to invade huge Russia.

That he did not take into consideration Napoleon's humiliated retreat from Russia is beyond belief.
 
People still cannot believe how unwise Hitler was to invade huge Russia.

That he did not take into consideration Napoleon's humiliated retreat from Russia is beyond belief.
Hitler was always going to invade the USSR, it represented his ideological Nemesis, and in his mind the center of the "Jewish threat". Also he had that completely fanatical idea of killing of the people of Eastern Europe and somehow colonize the place with Germans. There was no reality in which Hitler would not attack the USSR.
 
Another reminder to everyone. The EU did not exist before 1993, so it was not two EU member states that invaded Russia. The different predecessors of the EU only goes back to the 1950s.
 
How about "would the EU be different if Russia never seized half of Poland?"
 
On the Napoleon topic: most dead people of his army were forced german soldiers, not frenchmen. (I don´t know the exact numbers) - following your logic Germans should be afraid of France as hell ;)

I´m quite sure most Russians fear America much more than Germany or France. If anyone of them.
 
Incidentally:

The French are the only people (well, not all but quite a few of them) who can explain the difference between Napoleon and Hitler :LOL:

Those also think that they single-handedly won WWI and, even more amusingly, WWII.
 
Incidentally:

The French are the only people (well, not all but quite a few of them) who can explain the difference between Napoleon and Hitler :LOL:

Those also think that they single-handedly won WWI and, even more amusingly, WWII.
Never met a Frenchman that thought that of WW2 nor WW1. Hell even most Brits don't claim that anymore.

And there are clear differences between Napoleon and Hitler. For one Napoleon was a brilliant general, and Hitler was a corporal..
 
On the Napoleon topic: most dead people of his army were forced german soldiers, not frenchmen. (I don´t know the exact numbers) - following your logic Germans should be afraid of France as hell ;)

I´m quite sure most Russians fear America much more than Germany or France. If anyone of them.
It remains difficult to determine exact numbers but conservative estimates put the total of Napoleonic forces entering Russia at 500,000 to 600,000 men, the lion's share of those comprising Germans.

Around 120,000 of that total (above) managed to return.

But one also needs to consider that Prussia commenced to switch sides in the middle of the whole shebang, in an agreement with Russia once the Napoleonic retreat began.
 
Never met a Frenchman that thought that of WW2 nor WW1. Hell even most Brits don't claim that anymore.
Maybe not nowadays (anymore) but I've met quite few in my time.
And there are clear differences between Napoleon and Hitler. For one Napoleon was a brilliant general, and Hitler was a corporal..
I was referring to the governance of each in submerging the whole of Europe (and beyond) in war and suppressing the people of whatever territory they conquered.

Plenty of French people even today still revere the little Corsican dipshit, conveniently forgetting the suffering he brought upon practically all of Europe.

He's even buried in the "Invalides" in Paris, serving there as a pilgrimage point for reverence, when he really deserved an unmarked grave in nowhere's middle.
 
How about "would the EU be different if Russia never seized half of Poland?"
Or if Poland never seized Western Belarus and the Ukraine, or if Poland never was partitioned by Russia, Prussia and Austria, or if Russia and her allies didn't win The Great Northern War, etc. etc. etc.
 
Maybe not nowadays (anymore) but I've met quite few in my time.

I was referring to the governance of each in submerging the whole of Europe (and beyond) in war and suppressing the people of whatever territory they conquered.

Plenty of French people even today still revere the little Corsican dipshit, conveniently forgetting the suffering he brought upon practically all of Europe.

He's even buried in the "Invalides" in Paris, serving there as a pilgrimage point for reverence, when he really deserved an unmarked grave in nowhere's middle.

The victor writes the history books. The only ones that Napoleon suppressed/suffered was the defeated ruling elite who later on wrote the history books when Napoleon was defeated.

And everything is relative of course.
 
I believe that Russia is still far more traumatized by Stalin than Napoleon or Hitler.

You believe propaganda. Why you believe it, I don't know.

Most "horrific" stories about Stalin are fabrications from the US and other anti-Russia nations. Sure, he was not a saint, but far from what the West tries to portray him.

Some info from your favorite US-sponsored and controlled propaganda outlet:

A total of 70 percent of the Russians surveyed said that Stalin played a completely positive or relatively positive role in "the life of our country," a jump from the 54 percent recorded in 2016, according to results released by independent pollster Levada Center on April 16.

"Holodomor" (famine allegedly deliberately caused by Stalin in order to exterminate Ukraineans)? It's one of the biggest lies fabricated by the West. There was famine in the area, but there was famine also in Russia and other areas of the former USSR.
The Bengal Famine is far better documented as being the result of Churchill's decisions.
 
The victor writes the history books. The only ones that Napoleon suppressed/suffered was the defeated ruling elite who later on wrote the history books when Napoleon was defeated.
I reckon that alone the thousands of non-French soldiers pressed into his army (and thus the Russian adventure) would probably have disagreed. Of course they were indeed subjected to the whims of their rulers but those others that resisted him in Spain, Portugal and the Tyrol would probably throw in their lot with the rest of the opposition.
And everything is relative of course.
Well, that's true enough.
 
I reckon that alone the thousands of non-French soldiers pressed into his army (and thus the Russian adventure) would probably have disagreed. Of course they were indeed subjected to the whims of their rulers but those others that resisted him in Spain, Portugal and the Tyrol would probably throw in their lot with the rest of the opposition.

Well, that's true enough.
And the thousands of non British or Polish or "insert country that opposed France" that did exactly the same? The Austrians loved forcing Hungarians and others within their empire into the military.
 
And the thousands of non British or Polish or "insert country that opposed France" that did exactly the same? The Austrians loved forcing Hungarians and others within their empire into the military.
Well, no amount of whataboutism over others having been little better is going to serve in white-washing the little Corsican scum.
 
Well, no amount of whataboutism over others having been little better is going to serve in white-washing the little Corsican scum.
well...

Well, no amount of whataboutism over others having been little better is going to serve in white-washing the fat English scum.
Guess who.. he killed far more than Napoleon!

Btw. Napoleon was not little. That is one of those myths written by the victors. For the age period he was actually above average if not tall.. 1.68 meters.
 
You believe propaganda. Why you believe it, I don't know.

Most "horrific" stories about Stalin are fabrications from the US and other anti-Russia nations. Sure, he was not a saint, but far from what the West tries to portray him.

Some info from your favorite US-sponsored and controlled propaganda outlet:

A total of 70 percent of the Russians surveyed said that Stalin played a completely positive or relatively positive role in "the life of our country," a jump from the 54 percent recorded in 2016, according to results released by independent pollster Levada Center on April 16.

"Holodomor" (famine allegedly deliberately caused by Stalin in order to exterminate Ukraineans)? It's one of the biggest lies fabricated by the West. There was famine in the area, but there was famine also in Russia and other areas of the former USSR.
The Bengal Famine is far better documented as being the result of Churchill's decisions.

A BS Soviet love piece poll which doesn't even have anything to do with the Russian people's mistrust and fear of their government while living under under the Soviets..

Stalin murdered 4-7 million people depending on who's numbers you go by.

 
well...


Guess who.. he killed far more than Napoleon!
Genghis Khan? :p

Btw. Napoleon was not little. That is one of those myths written by the victors. For the age period he was actually above average if not tall.. 1.68 meters.
Short arse is short arse, the hell with the time period.:ROFLMAO:
 
The two most traumatic events in Russian history were the invasions of their country by France and Germany. Tens of millions of their people died as a result of the unwarranted aggression of France and Germany. Can anyone blame Russia for distancing itself from Western Europe? Have France and German ever apologised for the horrendous loss of life and damage they caused in Russia?

West Germany apologized, which lead to the Ost Vertraege.
Remember the famous picture of Willy Brand taking the knee in Poland. West Germany payed billions in reparation, to East Europe and the USSR.
All that cumulated in the Ost Vertraege.
The Vienna Congress of European Nations dealt with the aftermath of the Napoleon wars.
Problem solved.
Do you need history lessons ?
 
Back
Top Bottom