Marcus

here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion...

what do you think about it and why it is not celebrated? Isn't it incredible in itself? I think it is absolutelly facinating ! Why Brits and Russians have no idea about that? and why it is never mentioned in press or on TV, while Iran is always on ther press's mind...

I am a Russian and I like to visit such countries as Finland,Germany etc because I like sophisticated civilisation, higher technological standards etc. - I think it is normal...But I will never go to Laos or Bangladesh to mingle with locals there (not because I am arogant - quite opposite, I understand that they may be not happy to expose their poverty for example for a foreigner...Even if I go to Asian country I never try to visit people in their homes, to examine sanitary conditions in their toilets and then to talk about it back at home with the feeling of my own "superiority"...Yet, there are a lot of Brits, Americans etc, who (for example) like to travel in Russia's third class carriages , to find some off-tourist roads, some little village etc...some Russians/ukrainian/africans/latinos/asians/chinese don't realise that they are watched like animals in a zoo and sincerely share with foreign guests all their food and accomodation...and later we read in foreighn press various reviues about their expirience in wild weird Russia/Ukraine/India/Africa/Bolivia (whatever) in one home with those underdeveloped savages - usually those "savages" are described as friendly and warm (sometimes not), but always as inferior and it is presented always with "aristocratic" tint of liberal-humanitarian goodwill (very rarely with open gloating) -some hopes for better times for those poor people are expressed, local government blamed (it is a "must" to blame "corrupted" government - even if a saint wouldn't be able to make a Sweden out of Africa in one years time etc.)... but nearly always all that is presented with the feeling of selfcontent and elevated personal dignity of the narrator as if his/her own country's civilisational level is his/her personal merit...Is it clear what I am trying to say?...or I am wrong on that?

and which one Brits despise most?..and why?...which one they respect most? ... and why?.... if Britain was defeated by one of those Empires which of those would be the most unacceptable (for Brits) Victorious Empire ?

so by invading Czeckoslovakia togeather with Hitler in 1938 and annexing Czeck region of Zaolzie Poland didn't put itseld in the list of Hitler's allies, or at least co-belligerent countries of Germany(like Finland)? - if not, then...then why Poles say Soviet Union was an ally of Germany on initial stages of war? - I don't see any difference....trade agreements betveen USSR and Germany?, but there were the same in betveen Poland and Germany - wiki:

"The 1934 Polish-German non-aggression pact, soon followed by a trade agreement with Germany, is said to have granted Germany a settled eastern border and allowed Hitler time for rearmament; five years later, he went on to successfully invade Poland.[7][8] Piłsudski, while distrusting German intentions on the whole, perceived Hitler's origins as an Austrian rather than a Prussian as a mitigating factor, and stated that he would like to see him in power as long as possible. "

as well know - in 1938 Germany and Poland togeather invaded and partitioned Czeckoslovakia - Poland grabbed coal rich Czeck region of Zaolzie to itself - Churchil called Poland as "hyena of Europe" for that...the next year Germans invaded Poland as we all know....so why Poles are all victims in ww2 and not considered as Hitler's ally at the very begining of ww2-related military captures and occupations in Europe, while Czecks are forgotten as first victims of first nazi (and Polish) intervention in ww2-connected partitions and occupations in Europe?

So in 1938 Poland togeather with nazi Germany invaded and partitioned Czheckoslovakia and grabbed coal rich region of Zaolzie(Zaolsie) for them...then, next year Hitler invaded Poland and Poles prefer to say that the war started in 1939....Is it because they prefer to be hero-victims, but not perpetrators and agressors in memory of generations and in History?

Ofcource my question is LOADED one - I think Poland togeather with Germany were both agressors at the begining of ww2, but later Poland became the victim - whats your take on that? - am I right or wrong?

when we say "world war" we mean many countires involved so such wars as Japanese invasion of China in 1932 and 1937 couldn't be atributed to ww2 as it was a war in betveen 2....the same about Italian war with Abissinia in 1935-1936 as it also involved only those 2.....

But let's look at 1938 - Germany togeather with Poland and Hungary invaded Czheckoslovakia and partitioned it and at the same time the first major Soviet-Japanese border incident, the Battle of Lake Khasan, happened in 1938 in Primorye involving Chinese-Japanese puppet state Manchukuo - that conflict within several months involved Mongolia when Japaneese tryed to invade it and Soviets sided with Mongolia and defeated Japaneese in Battles of Khalkin Goll in spring - summer 1939 (thus securing Mongolia from Japanese occupation) - so by the moment when Germans invaded Poland various coordinated military actions were already going on....but, look - if we take 1938 as the begining of ww2 - then Poland is not a victim, but the attacker (same like Hitler)...kind of like for political reasons many try to accuse Stalin in conspiracy with Hitler to occupy Poland in 1939, yet if you start to look at chain of events from 1938 when Stalin proposed treaty to UK and France to defend Checkoslovakia from Hitler , but Uk/France rejected it and Stalin warned Poland that Soviet-Polish non-agression treaty would be void if Poland invaded Checkoslovakia, but Poland togeather with Hitler did invade and grabed Check region of Zaolsie (and Churchill called Poland as hyena of Europe for that !!!) - then we see Poland as co-beligerant (if not ally) of Germany , while Stalin trying to prevent occupation of indigenous ukrainians and belarussians on polish occupied territories (in 1920) that was "eastern poland" in 1939 and he was trying to prevent it both against 2 agressive states - Poland and Germany , who were cobeligerant at the moment of sighning Molotov-Ribentropp Pact!!!

Interesting, isn't it?....Poland, poland, poland - victim or agressor turned victim during ww2? - depends when you think ww2 started, right?....so is 1939 is prefered over 1938 just for political reasons to whitewash some countries and to portray others are perpetrators?...I mean this picking 1939 as begining of ww2 (instead of 1938) is pro-Poland and anti-Soviet choice - what do you think? - also this picking 1939 exonerates coward actions of apeasement of agressors (Germany, Poland and Hungary) in 1938 by UK and France (by sighning Munich Pact with Hitler) - isn't it interesting?

when we say "world war" we mean many countires involved so such wars as Japanese invasion of China in 1932 and 1937 couldn't be atributed to ww2 as it was a war in betveen 2....the same about Italian war with Abissinia in 1935-1936 as it also involved only those 2.....

But let's look at 1938 - Germany togeather with Poland and Hungary invaded Czheckoslovakia and partitioned it and at the same time the first major Soviet-Japanese border incident, the Battle of Lake Khasan, happened in 1938 in Primorye involving Chinese-Japanese puppet state Manchukuo - that conflict within several months involved Mongolia when Japaneese tryed to invade it and Soviets sided with Mongolia and defeated Japaneese in Battles of Khalkin Goll in spring - summer 1939 (thus securing Mongolia from Japanese occupation) - so by the moment when Germans invaded Poland various coordinated military actions were already going on....but, look - if we take 1938 as the begining of ww2 - then Poland is not a victim, but the attacker (same like Hitler)...kind of like for political reasons many try to accuse Stalin in conspiracy with Hitler to occupy Poland in 1939, yet if you start to look at chain of events from 1938 when Stalin proposed treaty to UK and France to defend Checkoslovakia from Hitler , but Uk/France rejected it and Stalin warned Poland that Soviet-Polish non-agression treaty would be void if Poland invaded Checkoslovakia, but Poland togeather with Hitler did invade and grabed Check region of Zaolsie (and Churchill called Poland as hyena of Europe for that !!!) - then we see Poland as co-beligerant (if not ally) of Germany and Stalin trying to prevent occupation of indigenous ukrainians and belarussians on polish occupied territories (in 1920) that was "eastern poland" in 1939 and he was trying to prevent it both against 2 agressive states - Poland and Germany , who were cobeligerant at the moment of sighning Molotov-Ribentropp Pact!!!

Interesting, isn't it?....Poland, poland, poland - victim or agressor turned victim during ww2? - depends when you think ww2 started, right?....so is 1939 is prefered over 1938 just for political reasons to whitewash some countries and to portray others are perpetrators?...I mean this picking 1939 as begining of ww2 (instead of 1938) is pro-Poland and anti-Soviet choice - what do you think? - also this picking 1939 exonerates coward actions of apeasement of agressors (Germany, Poland and Hungary) in 1938 by UK and France (by sighning Munich Pact with Hitler) - isn't it interesting?

I mean for example in Russian Empire we had one general - Suvorov - and he got a lot of titles from the Emperor as well as from foreighn Monarchs for his victories in Europe while he commanded joint forces of Russia, Austria, Sardiania etc in 18 century campaign in Italy against French... so here is how it sounds - Aleksandr Suvorov, Prince of Italy, Count of Rymnik, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Prince of Sardinia, Generalissimo of Russia's Ground and Naval forces, Field Marshal of the Austrian and Sardinian armies...or for example Felix Yusupov (who murdered Rasputin) was officially - His Serene Highness Prince Yusupov, Count Sumarokov-Elston....etc.etc...

So I have read an article "United Kingdom" in wikipedia and understand that England+Scotland=Great Britain....and UK is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...yet it is said that UK consists of 4 countries - Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland....so looks like something is wrong with mathematics in UK - so why UK is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if Great Britain is only England and Scotland? - where is Wales in this equotion?

what are implications of such situation and what does the fact of living in high Mountaings brings to the picture? Can they all survive as independednt ethnic states - 80 ethnic groups in Dagestan, 7 autonomous republics in other North Caucasus regions of Russia with dosens of ethnic groups which are different even in ethnic-linguitic groups( turkic, mongoloid, caucasian, persian, even hasar jewish (dagestan) - all are historically indigenous locals, beligerent, some Christian (ossetians, 50/50 anhkasians, others muslims and even bordering to budhist kalmuck in the north) - numbers ranging from 5-6 thousands (some ethnic groups) to 1 million (chechens) - any opinion or analises apreciated...

please elaborate your opinion - why you think what you think

this is not an insult question - but when you read literature or watch movies from those countries it looks like IN GENERAL (exaptions do exist) Germans are in Grand Ideas of morality or romanticising history/heritage, Brits are more in Law and Justice and traditions, Russians are in religious Spirituality and failed search for social equality and political identity, Italians and Spaniars are in Catholic Church and family bonds, Americans are in Democracy, free enterprise and their own glorification, but FRENCH - French are in cherishing instincts that have upper hand in their culture over Spiritual Christian values, social rules or duty and what is interesting, those insticts are perverted insticts in particular - not normal LOVE affair, but something perverted (like in movie "Pionist" where an intelligent woman satisfies her sexual/psychological needs by urinating near a car in which she overlooked a couple having sex - etc. - a lot of such stuf that they try to push as some kind of novelty or new "freedoms" etc...

Hope my question is clear...

yet they are good guys?

I mean today Vietnam is catching up China as far as development (both economic and social) goes on...Some say - look at North Korea and South Korea and feel the difference - indeed...but I would say - look at Philipines that was American protectorate for nearly 70 years and what will you see? - pretty sh.ty place, right? - so there is no any prove that Vietnam would prosper under American occupation better then it is doing now...So - was your fighting there worth it?...

there was Martin Luther King for blacks in the past, there was Ghandi in India, Pope John Paul the Second for Catholics, there is Nelson Mandela in South Africa , Brits worship their Queen, .....what about USA in this respect today?