What if Poland would have received *all* of East Prussia after the end of *World War I*?

[Futurist]

Also, for what it's worth, ethnic Hungarians currently make up just 18% of Transylvania's total population--in contrast to ethnic Romanians' 71%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... l_research

Thus, how exactly are the Hungarians going to justify trying to acquire a territory which has an overwhelming ethnic Romanian-majority population?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

The Hungarians were not in much of a position to encourage internal migration as they only formed about 55% of the population of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary. Magyarization promised eventually to assimilate the whole population, but the result of WWI put an end to that.

Russia moved in Ukraine because Ukraine looked as though economically and politically it was moving from its orbit into that of the EU. In Crimea it was salvaging what it could. In Donetsk and Lugansk Putin probably felt obliged to informally support local Russian nationalists because he would lose the support of home grown Russian nationalists if he did not.

Yes, "Hungary certainly knows that the West doesn't share its own views in regards to this, though." However, Hungary is beoming more ntionalist and authoritarian. If the West doesn't stand up to Putin, with whom Hungary has no conflict of interest and some commonality, in time authoritarian-nationalist Russia may seem like a viable alternative ally. I stress, this is one speculative and long term possible drift of many possibilities.

There was "Kargil War"? I know of three Indo-Pak wars. Are you talking about one of the occasional border clashes that have occurred since 1948?

I didn't say that Hitler's policies were rational. My point was that Hitler appeared to be a rational decision maker until 1940. At that stage, even his anti-Semitic policies didn't seem counter-productive to his overall aims, whether you agreed with them or not.

No, sanctions are not calling out Putin. They are a soft alternative, or a preliminary, to actually calling him out. If the oil price hadn't collapsed for unrelated reasons, sanctions looked unlikely to have the desired effect of returning Russia to following international laws and norms of behaviour. As it is, if the oil price remains low, Russia may run out of foreign currency around the end of this year. Then we might see Putin begin to suffer some internal pressures that may make him sweat a little.

Russia is interested in anything that increases tensions within NATO and weakens the alliance. It has no particular beef with Romania, except indirectly over Transdnestr, which is part of Romanian-speaking Moldova.

Certainly there were a lot of Slavs in Transdnestr before WWII. However, they were mostly Ukrainians. Russians were only about 10% of the population. If Transdnestr isn't a point of conflict between the adjacent Ukrainians and Moldovan/Romanians, why on earth should it be one for distant Russia?......

[Sid Guttridge]

.....Kiev almost certainly didn't have the launch codes for nuclear weapons on its soil in 1990. However, it gained independence as a nuclear armed state and the Russian threat didn't materialize until 20+ years later.

You ask, "Does Russia actually want to permanently eliminate its influence in Central Asia as well as to get even more Western sanctions put on it, though? After all, that is certainly going to happen if Russia invades Kazakhstan." I was not arguing in favour of anything. I was merely pointing out that Russian national identity is vulnerable elsewhere and that other frictions similar to those in Ukraine, exist in other places. Latvia is another case but, as a NATO member, it is less vulnerable. If Russia could get away with it, I would suggest that an extension of Russian territory further into Central Asia is more likely to extend rather than eliminate its influence there. Naturally, it wouldn't want more Western sanctions, but in about 4 years its oil begins to flow to China, at which point unilateral Western leverage would decline.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

The Hungarians were not in much of a position to encourage internal migration as they only formed about 55% of the population of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary.

They should have at least tried getting some ethnic Hungarians from what later became Trianon Hungary to settle in northern Transylvania, though.

Magyarization promised eventually to assimilate the whole population, but the result of WWI put an end to that.

I'm not so sure that Magyarization would have been a success even without World War I, though.

Russia moved in Ukraine because Ukraine looked as though economically and politically it was moving from its orbit into that of the EU. In Crimea it was salvaging what it could. In Donetsk and Lugansk Putin probably felt obliged to informally support local Russian nationalists because he would lose the support of home grown Russian nationalists if he did not.

Yes, this appears to be at least mostly correct. Indeed, (probably non-local) pro-Russian separatists also attempted to conquer Kharkiv in 2014 but failed.

Yes, "Hungary certainly knows that the West doesn't share its own views in regards to this, though." However, Hungary is beoming more ntionalist and authoritarian. If the West doesn't stand up to Putin, with whom Hungary has no conflict of interest and some commonality, in time authoritarian-nationalist Russia may seem like a viable alternative ally. I stress, this is one speculative and long term possible drift of many possibilities.

The West did stand up to Putin in regards to Ukraine, though. After all, Western sanctions against Russia are a Western response and punishment to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

There was "Kargil War"? I know of three Indo-Pak wars. Are you talking about one of the occasional border clashes that have occurred since 1948?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

I didn't say that Hitler's policies were rational. My point was that Hitler appeared to be a rational decision maker until 1940.

Possibly not to everyone, though.

At that stage, even his anti-Semitic policies didn't seem counter-productive to his overall aims, whether you agreed with them or not.

His overall aims were misguided (to put it mildly), though. Indeed, a rational person even in 1938-1940 might have figured this out.

No, sanctions are not calling out Putin. They are a soft alternative, or a preliminary, to actually calling him out.

How exactly are you defining "actually calling him out" here, though?

If the oil price hadn't collapsed for unrelated reasons, sanctions looked unlikely to have the desired effect of returning Russia to following international laws and norms of behaviour.

There is always the option of more and heavier Western sanctions on Russia, though.

As it is, if the oil price remains low, Russia may run out of foreign currency around the end of this year. Then we might see Putin begin to suffer some internal pressures that may make him sweat a little.

Completely agreed.

Russia is interested in anything that increases tensions within NATO and weakens the alliance. It has no particular beef with Romania, except indirectly over Transdnestr, which is part of Romanian-speaking Moldova.

Yes; correct! However, I am extremely skeptical that Hungary (even an authoritarian-lite Hungary such as Viktor Orban's) has any desire to actually risk getting expelled from the EU and/or NATO.

Certainly there were a lot of Slavs in Transdnestr before WWII. However, they were mostly Ukrainians. Russians were only about 10% of the population. If Transdnestr isn't a point of conflict between the adjacent Ukrainians and Moldovan/Romanians, why on earth should it be one for distant Russia?......

I will admit that I don't know very much about the conflict in Transnistria. However, could it be possible that the ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians in Transnistria formed a type of alliance between them and against the ethnic Moldovans/Romanians in Transnistria? After all, Russians and Ukrainians were viewed as brotherly peoples even in the early 21st century.

[Futurist]

.....Kiev almost certainly didn't have the launch codes for nuclear weapons on its soil in 1990. However, it gained independence as a nuclear armed state and the Russian threat didn't materialize until 20+ years later.

Couldn't Russia have militarily recaptured these nuclear weapons from Ukraine in the 1990s if Ukraine would have refused to voluntarily hand over these nuclear weapons to Russia, though?

You ask, "Does Russia actually want to permanently eliminate its influence in Central Asia as well as to get even more Western sanctions put on it, though? After all, that is certainly going to happen if Russia invades Kazakhstan." I was not arguing in favour of anything. I was merely pointing out that Russian national identity is vulnerable elsewhere and that other frictions similar to those in Ukraine, exist in other places. Latvia is another case but, as a NATO member, it is less vulnerable.

Completely agreed with all of this.

If Russia could get away with it, I would suggest that an extension of Russian territory further into Central Asia is more likely to extend rather than eliminate its influence there.

Strongly disagreed. After all, no Central Asian country would actually want to cooperate and collaborate with Russia for at least several decades after such a move on Russia's part. Indeed, you would see relations between Russia and the various Central Asian countries become as bad as Russian-Ukrainian relations currently are.

Naturally, it wouldn't want more Western sanctions, but in about 4 years its oil begins to flow to China, at which point unilateral Western leverage would decline.

Cheers,

Sid.

The thing is, though, that every incredibly sweet Chinese candy comes with an incredibly sour aftertaste. In other words, if Russia will become very dependent on China, then China might very well decide to try making Russia its (China's) bitch.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

Why "should" the Hungarians have tried something? They had no reason to anticipate WWI, or its results, and Romania on its own was not much of a threat. Besides, they already had the policy of gradual Magyarization in progress. It is only with 20/20 hindsight that we can see the immediacy of the issue.

Magyarization was already very successful in assimilating Hungary's Jews, in urban areas and amongst the educated middle classes of all minorities. (For example, the common Hungarian surname "Nemeth" means "German" in Magyar). The long term problem lay amongst the under educated rural peasantry, who were the majority, who learnt their language and culture at their mother's knee, rather than through organs of state and education. To be successful, Magyarization wouldn't have had to assimilate all minorities, just enough to give Hungarian language and culture a majority presence. This would have created new "facts", as the Israelis say of their West Bank settlements.

The solidarity of the West's sanctions response apparently surprised the Kremlin. On the other hand, it hasn't deterred Russia from other adventures since or led to a single step back in Ukraine. Since the sanctions, Russia has been trying to wean vulnerable western states such as Cyprus and Greece away from the EU.

Just because somebody on Wikipedia headlines a border incident as a "war" doesn't make it so. The Kargil incident was a limited, localized affair involving only a tiny fraction of the armed forces of either side.

Whether Hitler's aims were misguided or not is irrelevant to the rationality of his actions in pursuing them. Look what he had achieved in a few years - he had gained power with some legitimacy, and eliminated what he identified as internal opposition, including Communists and the Jewish community. He had remilitarized. He had gained the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland and Bohemia-Moravia almost without a shot being fired. He had then conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and France with very low German casualties and driven the UK from the continent, with little prospect of its return. By apparent rational judgement he seems to have matched his resources (which initially were quite limited) to the tasks in hand most successfully. Indeed, it was all probably far beyond his own initial expectations. It was only after this that he began to lose the plot by taking on more than Germany was capable of.

There are a number of ways of upping the pressure on Russia that match its own activities. NATO guarantees could be extended to cover Finland,
Moldova, or Ukraine or Georgia. Real military deployments could be made in the Baltic States. The USA could bomb any airfield used by the Syrian Air Force to mount raids during the ceasefire, or issue selected Syrian rebels with AA missiles. You might think these have risks, and they do, but they simply reflect part of what Russia has already been doing. Is Russia the only state allowed to wave a big stick while everyone else has to react with one hand behind their back?

I don't know if there is any difference in attitude between the Russians and Ukrainians in Transdnestr. However, one suspects that the Crimea/Lugansk/Donetsk conflict cannot have done much for solidarity between them.

Cheers,

Sid

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

Why "should" the Hungarians have tried something? They had no reason to anticipate WWI, or its results,

Then why have the alliance system in the first place?

and Romania on its own was not much of a threat.

No, but Russia was.

Besides, they already had the policy of gradual Magyarization in progress. It is only with 20/20 hindsight that we can see the immediacy of the issue.

OK; fair enough, I suppose.

Magyarization was already very successful in assimilating Hungary's Jews, in urban areas and amongst the educated middle classes of all minorities. (For example, the common Hungarian surname "Nemeth" means "German" in Magyar). The long term problem lay amongst the under educated rural peasantry, who were the majority, who learnt their language and culture at their mother's knee, rather than through organs of state and education. To be successful, Magyarization wouldn't have had to assimilate all minorities, just enough to give Hungarian language and culture a majority presence. This would have created new "facts", as the Israelis say of their West Bank settlements.

Out of curiosity--do you believe that if Imperial Russia would have implemented universal education earlier, then it would have been able to successfully Russify the Ukrainians, the Belarusians, and perhaps some other non-Russian peoples?

The solidarity of the West's sanctions response apparently surprised the Kremlin. On the other hand, it hasn't deterred Russia from other adventures since or led to a single step back in Ukraine. Since the sanctions, Russia has been trying to wean vulnerable western states such as Cyprus and Greece away from the EU.

One might be able to argue that the Western sanctions on Russia and the fear of additional Western sanctions prevented Russia and pro-Russian separatists from capturing and conquering even more territory in Ukraine, though. After all, Ukrainian cities such as Kharkiv and Mariupol are currently still under Ukrainian control and rule.

Just because somebody on Wikipedia headlines a border incident as a "war" doesn't make it so. The Kargil incident was a limited, localized affair involving only a tiny fraction of the armed forces of either side.

Some news agencies also refer to the Kargil incident as a war, though. Indeed, I can provide sources for this if necessary.

Whether Hitler's aims were misguided or not is irrelevant to the rationality of his actions in pursuing them.

So you're saying that we should only look at the actions that Hitler made in pursuit of his goals rather than on his goals themselves, correct?

Look what he had achieved in a few years - he had gained power with some legitimacy, and eliminated what he identified as internal opposition, including Communists and the Jewish community. He had remilitarized. He had gained the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland and Bohemia-Moravia almost without a shot being fired. He had then conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and France with very low German casualties and driven the UK from the continent, with little prospect of its return. By apparent rational judgement he seems to have matched his resources (which initially were quite limited) to the tasks in hand most successfully. Indeed, it was all probably far beyond his own initial expectations. It was only after this that he began to lose the plot by taking on more than Germany was capable of.

Yes, everything in your post here appears to be correct.

There are a number of ways of upping the pressure on Russia that match its own activities. NATO guarantees could be extended to cover Finland, Moldova, or Ukraine or Georgia.

How exactly do you know that NATO doesn't already have such implicit guarantees, though?

Real military deployments could be made in the Baltic States.

Please define "real" here.

The USA could bomb any airfield used by the Syrian Air Force to mount raids during the ceasefire, or issue selected Syrian rebels with AA missiles.

Why fight Assad if ISIS is a greater threat, though?

Also, what if these AA missiles eventually end up in the hands of ISIS?

You might think these have risks, and they do, but they simply reflect part of what Russia has already been doing. Is Russia the only state allowed to wave a big stick while everyone else has to react with one hand behind their back?

Well, this depends on various countries' risk-reward calculations, no? After all, different countries certainly have different risk-reward calculations.

I don't know if there is any difference in attitude between the Russians and Ukrainians in Transdnestr. However, one suspects that the Crimea/Lugansk/Donetsk conflict cannot have done much for solidarity between them.

The conflict in Transnistria began over 20 years ago, though. Indeed, as far as I know, tensions between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians were much less than they are today.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

You ask, "Then why have the alliance system in the first place?". The Hungarians didn't. Austria-Hungary did.

Russia wasn't after Transilvania.

Possibly, "....if Imperial Russia would have implemented universal education earlier, then it would have been able to successfully Russify the Ukrainians, the Belarusians, and perhaps some other non-Russian peoples." Russification certainly worked where there were mixed populations adjacent to Russia proper.

Perhaps Western sanctions prevented further Russian adventurism, at least temporarily, or perhaps not. But we know for a fact they haven't led to Russia pulling back inside its own border. This is not over.

I would suggest that as "The Kargil incident was a limited, localized affair involving only a tiny fraction of the armed forces of either side." it only qualifies as a border clash. If all border incidents of the Kargil sort are described as wars, the word "war" will lose its meaning.

You ask, "So you're saying that we should only look at the actions that Hitler made in pursuit of his goals rather than on his goals themselves, correct?" Yes, if we are discussing the rationality of his decision making, which we are.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

You ask, "Then why have the alliance system in the first place?". The Hungarians didn't. Austria-Hungary did.

Hungary was a part of Austria-Hungary, though.

Russia wasn't after Transilvania.

No, but Russia could have helped Romania acquire Transylvania.

Possibly, "....if Imperial Russia would have implemented universal education earlier, then it would have been able to successfully Russify the Ukrainians, the Belarusians, and perhaps some other non-Russian peoples." Russification certainly worked where there were mixed populations adjacent to Russia proper.

OK.

Perhaps Western sanctions prevented further Russian adventurism, at least temporarily, or perhaps not. But we know for a fact they haven't led to Russia pulling back inside its own border. This is not over.

Completely agreed.

I would suggest that as "The Kargil incident was a limited, localized affair involving only a tiny fraction of the armed forces of either side." it only qualifies as a border clash. If all border incidents of the Kargil sort are described as wars, the word "war" will lose its meaning.

It seems like Pakistan's goals during the Kargil War were of a greater magnitude than they would have been if the Kargil War would have been a mere border conflict, though.

You ask, "So you're saying that we should only look at the actions that Hitler made in pursuit of his goals rather than on his goals themselves, correct?" Yes, if we are discussing the rationality of his decision making, which we are.

OK.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi futurist,

Although technically an equal, Hungary was the junior partner to Austria in the dual monarchy. The main early hold out against war with Serbia was the Hungarian prime minister, but Hungary got dragged in anyway. Hungary was not in control of its own foreign policy. Vienna was.

Certainly Russia might have helped Romania take Transilvania, but why? It itself had a Romanian-populated province in what is now Moldova. Why would it want to stoke Romanian nationalism?

There have only been three Indo-Pak wars, in 1948, 1965 and 1971. All involved the deployment of the bulk of the forces on both sides. Pakistan's ambitions seem to have been very limited at Kargil - the seizure of Kargil Peak and to make India's supply road, NH-1, unusable. Indeed, their commitment was so limited that they were able to pretend that the attack was by lightly armed Kashmiri mujahideen, not the Pakistani Army. The Kargil incident remained local.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi futurist,

Although technically an equal, Hungary was the junior partner to Austria in the dual monarchy. The main early hold out against war with Serbia was the Hungarian prime minister, but Hungary got dragged in anyway. Hungary was not in control of its own foreign policy. Vienna was.

OK.

Certainly Russia might have helped Romania take Transilvania, but why? It itself had a Romanian-populated province in what is now Moldova. Why would it want to stoke Romanian nationalism?

Perhaps because Russia was already Austria-Hungary's rival in the Balkans and thus might want to try weakening Austria-Hungary by any means necessary.

There have only been three Indo-Pak wars, in 1948, 1965 and 1971. All involved the deployment of the bulk of the forces on both sides.

Yes; correct!

Pakistan's ambitions seem to have been very limited at Kargil - the seizure of Kargil Peak

You mean the Siachen Glacier, correct?

and to make India's supply road, NH-1, unusable.

Yes; correct! However, couldn't Pakistan have also tried conquering more of Kashmir in the Kargil War if its initial attack would have been very successful? After all, if you're winning, why stop now?

Indeed, their commitment was so limited that they were able to pretend that the attack was by lightly armed Kashmiri mujahideen, not the Pakistani Army. The Kargil incident remained local.

Pakistan might have felt that it needed plausible deniability in order to avoid getting large sanctions placed on it, though. After all, Pakistani aggression against India was probably (on average) less tolerated by the international community (specifically by countries such as the U.S. and Britain) in the post-Cold War era than it was during the Cold War.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi futurist,

Certainly the Kargil incident might have expanded into a war if Pakistan had initially been successful, but it wasn't, and the fighting remained very localized. I don't think we can legitimately call the Kargil clash a war on the grounds that it might have escalated.

Plausible deniability was very likely the reason the mujahideen were used as cover by Pakistan. However, if the incident was really a full scale war this would have been deeply implausible.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi futurist,

Certainly the Kargil incident might have expanded into a war if Pakistan had initially been successful, but it wasn't, and the fighting remained very localized. I don't think we can legitimately call the Kargil clash a war on the grounds that it might have escalated.

Fair point, I suppose.

Plausible deniability was very likely the reason the mujahideen were used as cover by Pakistan. However, if the incident was really a full scale war this would have been deeply implausible.

Cheers,

Sid.

By that logic, though, the War in the Donbass (2014-present) likewise isn't a full-scale war since Russia presumably sent some/many Russian troops into Ukraine and pretended that they were Eastern Ukrainian separatists, correct?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

There is no separate war in the Donbas. It is part of the general move highlighted by the occupation of Crimea.

I would suggest that Putin's Russia is doing what Hitler's Germany did over 1938-39. Hitler was effectively on a war footing throughout the period, whereas his opponents were not. He planned and executed at least four military occupations (Austria, Sudetenland, Bohemia-Moravia, Memel) even before formal war broke out. Mussolini did the same on Ethiopia and Albania and Stalin in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Northern Bucovina and eastern Poland. Putin seems to be attempting the same trick, except that Ukraine displayed more spine over the Donbas than Austria, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania were able to, because it had some non-military outside support in the form of sanctions on Russia.

Cheers,

Sid.

[BDV]

Hi Futurist,

There is no separate war in the Donbas. It is part of the general move highlighted by the occupation of Crimea.

I would suggest that Putin's Russia is doing what Hitler's Germany did over 1938-39. Hitler was effectively on a war footing throughout the period, whereas his opponents were not. He planned and executed at least four military occupations (Austria, Sudetenland, Bohemia-Moravia, Memel) even before formal war broke out. Mussolini did the same on Ethiopia and Albania and Stalin in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Northern Bucovina and eastern Poland. Putin seems to be attempting the same trick, except that Ukraine displayed more spine over the Donbas than Austria, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania were able to, because it had some non-military outside support in the form of sanctions on Russia.

Bringing up current events is verboten for a reason. FWIW I totally reject your position/interpretation of Putinite Russia's actions.

But that is completely irrelevant to a historical WHIF forum.