Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could you please name the second country who intentionally built buffer states between itself and the neighbors as Russia did?
Could you think the other way around: if you make others feel unsafe, how can yourself feel safe??? You see what I am saying? You view/make all other neighbors as your enemies, they will become your enemies.
Make sense?
Here, let me help you a bit; Misco has posted it earlier. May be this will explain to you a thing or two;
Yes, It helps a little bit but it only tells one side of the coin and misses the other side. Why Russia had much more foes than other European nations?
Yes, It helps a little bit but it only tells one side of the coin and misses the other side. Why Russia had much more foes than other European nations?
What "other side?"
Whose side of a story you want to hear - Gengnis Khan's, Napoleon's, Hitler's - what?
Finland is a buffer state that separates Sweden from Russia. Its interesting that Sweden even considered helping the Finns during the Winter War. This would had been a huge controversial step because the Swedes had already been neutral for generations.
Its fortunate that the war ended by Spring because some countries were thinking of intervening directly to help Finland. This included Britain and France, who were already fighting Hitler and now would also been fighting Stalin at the same time! Hitler would have loved to see that.
Sweden allowed over 2 million German troops to cross its territory in WW2. Germany requested transit across Sweden before the invasion of the USSR, which tells us that the USSR was expecting an attack.
Yes, It helps a little bit but it only tells one side of the coin and misses the other side. Why Russia had much more foes than other European nations?
It told you that. It stated Russia had to create buffer states to survive. Finland is next?
What "other side?"
Whose side of a story you want to hear - Gengnis Khan's, Napoleon's, Hitler's - what?
Could you please do me a favor? Please recommend a history book written by Russian historian
or a history textbook taught at high school/university in Russia??? I need the book title, author(s),etc to Google it out online. Better to be in English if available. Thanks.
Could you please do me a favor? Please recommend a history book written by Russian historian
or a history textbook taught at high school/university in Russia??? I need the book title, author(s),etc to Google it out online. Better to be in English if available. Thanks.
Sorry can't help you here, because through the course of my life I've read numerous books on different periods of Russian history and I wouldn't remember the authors by now.
As for the "high school text-book on Russian history" - there was no such thing when I was at school.
I'll explain to you why. We were studying history thoroughly, step by step, ( be that history of Russia or the world's history,) starting from the fourth grade, vs doing nothing through all the school years, and then reading one book, that would tell us "a bit about everything" in high school.
So sorry, can't help you here, as far as Russian authors go, however one of the best books on Russian history I've ever read was "The course of Russian history" written by Melvin G. Wren, ( professor of history in University of Toledo.)
It's the third edition; don't remember about the first two (may be be I couldn't find them on-line,) but definitely do not take the fourth edition; it's not as good.
It told you that. It stated Russia had to create buffer states to survive. Finland is next?
No, not really, because in the modern world the wars are fought on a different front - financial one.
Something like that - and that's the weapon that has been tried on Russia in the nineties as well.
And Russians had no desires on Great Britain as well ( including the "crown jewel" - India.)
It was always an intricate dance, the division of the world's "spheres of interests," where the two rarely directly clashed ( unless other European powers were involved.) And it was wise and "workable" arrangement, apparently, a truly "Great Game" of two Empires, where with the US - it was already a different story.
No, not really, because in the modern world the wars are fought on a different front - financial one.
I am fully aware of John Perkins. The USA creates an economic empire, well the Brits did that first and the USA expanded on the idea. This option is not available to Russia.
The British were not expansionist at all. They got an empire without hardly firing a shot. They were great traders and manufacturers. They had a lot to offer the rest of the world. They only took land from natives as protection against other European colonial expansion. Rhodesia is the prime example in protecting South Africa from German expansion. The British got India by default and never really wanted the place. They only wanted to trade. In those days having to protect the trading ports was vital.
The average Russian soldier knew nothing about the politics of it. I guess you wished the Nazis would have beaten the USSR.
So what? I would not in any situation be part of an offensive war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
