Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

[Peter89]

Standard of living in non democratic China is higher than in democratic Philippines .

And the standard of living in democratic Philippines is higher than in non-democratic Korea. What does that prove? Nothing.

You compare apples to peaches. Of course, there is no relation.

Why do you refuse to compare comparable things?

There is transversal and longitudinal analysis. The transversal analysis means you can compare South Korea to North Korea. You can compare Taiwan to China. You can compare West Germany to East Germany. In longitudinal analysis you can compare a country to itself. Take a look at the Baltic States, Romania, Poland, etc. under Soviet subjugation and under their own control.

This is not even a debate. This is evidently clear.

You can also compare Weimar Germany to Nazi Germany

I do, and Weimar Germany was way better than Nazi Germany. The result of Nazi Germany was the physical destruction of Germany and a large portion of the German people - thus, it was magnitudes worse than anything that ever happened in Weimar Germany. The result of autocracy in Germany was poverty and ruins.

and 1960 NK to present NK .

It seems you really don't understand.

The rule of a dictator does not mean a low standard of living :the standard of living in 1990 China was lower than in today China,although both are dictatorial regimes .

Or you don't want to understand.

The reason why the standard of living in 1960 China was lower,is because in 19900 the regime was a Communist regime,while now it is a post communist regime .

Or you have no idea how to set up a model for such a comparison.

Liberal capitalism is capitalism dominated by a liberal ideology and will fail as did Communism .

Or you have a political agenda driven by buzzwords of ideology instead of genuine interest in analysis.

The only way an economic system can succeed is when it is independent of the political system .

Or maybe you lack fundamental knowledge about state affairs.

[gebhk]

I suppose another question is 'what other concessions'? Apart from Hokkaido, Stalin got pretty much everything that he wanted.

Hi Ijadw

Before the war Hungary,Romania and Bulgaria were German allies

We must be reading different history books In my history books Hungary became an ally of Germany in November 1940; Romania was an ally of Poland but otherwise neutral before the war and did not become an ally of Germany until, again, November 1940 while Bulgaria was neutral before the war and became an ally of Germany in 1941. Am I missing something?

[wm]

Even more, the three countries became Germany's unwilling co-belligerents after the Soviets invaded or threatened them.
It wasn't like the three countries were full of couldn't-wait-to-do-Hitler's-biddings Hitlerities.

[ljadw]

Standard of living in non democratic China is higher than in democratic Philippines .

And the standard of living in democratic Philippines is higher than in non-democratic Korea. What does that prove? Nothing.

You compare apples to peaches. Of course, there is no relation.

Why do you refuse to compare comparable things?

There is transversal and longitudinal analysis. The transversal analysis means you can compare South Korea to North Korea. You can compare Taiwan to China. You can compare West Germany to East Germany. In longitudinal analysis you can compare a country to itself. Take a look at the Baltic States, Romania, Poland, etc. under Soviet subjugation and under their own control.

This is not even a debate. This is evidently clear.

You can also compare Weimar Germany to Nazi Germany

I do, and Weimar Germany was way better than Nazi Germany. The result of Nazi Germany was the physical destruction of Germany and a large portion of the German people - thus, it was magnitudes worse than anything that ever happened in Weimar Germany. The result of autocracy in Germany was poverty and ruins.

and 1960 NK to present NK .

It seems you really don't understand.

The rule of a dictator does not mean a low standard of living :the standard of living in 1990 China was lower than in today China,although both are dictatorial regimes .

Or you don't want to understand.

The reason why the standard of living in 1960 China was lower,is because in 19900 the regime was a Communist regime,while now it is a post communist regime .

Or you have no idea how to set up a model for such a comparison.

Liberal capitalism is capitalism dominated by a liberal ideology and will fail as did Communism .

Or you have a political agenda driven by buzzwords of ideology instead of genuine interest in analysis.

The only way an economic system can succeed is when it is independent of the political system .

Or maybe you lack fundamental knowledge about state affairs.

We are talking about the German economy and standard of living, not about WW2 :reality is that in 1939 the German standard of living was higher than in 1929 and that that was the main reason why the German population supported Hitler .
An Austrian told me that his father,a socialist, supported the Anschluss because he was jobless and that the situation of jobless people in Germany was better than in Austria .
You want to see only models that support your theories .
About liberal capitalism : reality is that in the West the standard of living of a great part of the population has since 2000 not only stopped to increase,but is even decreasing and the impoverished young and old people blame the Liberal political class for this and this explains the rise of populism .
An economic system that is depending on a doomed political system (in the West liberalism ) is also doomed to fail .
The USSR collapsed because the economy collapsed and its economy collapsed because it was subordinate to communism .
It was the same in Hungary : goulash communism was doomed to fail because it was coimminist and that was the reason why the Hungarians refused to fight to preserve goulash communism .
You still refuse to admit that in all dictatorships a minority supports the regime, a minority opposes the regime and that the great majority accepts the regime only as long as the regime is able to increase the standard of living .
Most people in the USSR ( even the party members, even Putin ) were not communists (people are not interested by politics ) but accepted the regime as long as it was in their benefit .
Before 1991 the great majority did not oppose communism,because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know ,in 1991 no one supported the regime, because the economy had collapsed .
In 1992 US electors expected that old Bush would start with the phasing out of the big Liberal state, but Bush ( the man of the establishment ) did the opposite and took even more money from the taxpayers to save and even increase the establishment . The result was the scission of the GOP and Bush was defeated :Ross Perot got 18,9 % of the votes .
Orban is still ruling Hungary, but if the Hungarian economy collapsed, he would be ousted .
As they said in 1992 : ''It is the economy,you stupid .''

[ljadw]

I suppose another question is 'what other concessions'? Apart from Hokkaido, Stalin got pretty much everything that he wanted.

Hi Ijadw

Before the war Hungary,Romania and Bulgaria were German allies

We must be reading different history books In my history books Hungary became an ally of Germany in November 1940; Romania was an ally of Poland but otherwise neutral before the war and did not become an ally of Germany until, again, November 1940 while Bulgaria was neutral before the war and became an ally of Germany in 1941. Am I missing something?

In 1938 and 1939 Hungary took a part of CS with the consent of Germany .
Romania did not help Poland in September 1939,its alliance with Poland was directed against the Soviets .And Romania did nothing when the Soviets invaded Poland .
France could not count on Romania if there was a war with Germany .

[ljadw]

Even more, the three countries became Germany's unwilling co-belligerents after the Soviets invaded or threatened them.
It wasn't like the three countries were full of couldn't-wait-to-do-Hitler's-biddings Hitlerities.

The Soviets did not invade or threaten Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria before 1939 .
And I did not say that they were full of Hitlerities .They became allies of Hitler because it was in their interests to do this .

[gebhk]

Hi Ijadw

In 1938 and 1939 Hungary took a part of CS with the consent of Germany .
Romania did not help Poland in September 1939,its alliance with Poland was directed against the Soviets .And Romania did nothing when the Soviets invaded Poland .
France could not count on Romania if there was a war with Germany .

None of that is evidence that any of these countries were allies of Germany before the war. Shall we move on?

[wm]

They became allies of Hitler because it was in their interests to do this .

I think it's pointless to discuss history with wilfully ignorant people.
Nothing wrong with ignorance, "wilfully" is a different story.
It's simply not fun.

[Loïc]

Roumania Yugoslavia and Czechoslvakia formed the Petite Entente and Roumania in particular had stronger links with France than Germany for a quantity of reasons not to mention that this latin nation was a former ally during the Great War
in the Interwars France counted Roumania as a potential pro-allied country and didn't cease to try to build an alliance system with the Petite Entente and enlarge it to Greece and Turkey in order to plan until the spring 1940 something like a second Front in the Balkans as in the Great War

Revue Historique des Armées n°244 France-Roumanie
https://journals.openedition.org/rha/392

Les Relations Franco-Roumaines
Romania's national security strategy is traditionally oriented towards France and Great Britain, its allies during the Great War and guarantors of the system of international relations established by the Treaty of Versailles. This orientation, which will never be contested by the Romanian leaders, constitutes one of the features defining the foreign policy of the Romanian State between 1918 and 1944.
France's support for Romania during the Great War and the constitution of Greater Romania, in 1918, determined this choice. Faced with the new risk of war, France, having set up a network of alliances and security pacts bringing together the States of Central and Eastern Europe favorable to the maintenance of peace (the Little Entente) and to the coherence of the system of international relations, imposes itself as the essential partner of Romania, in particular, and of the small anti-fascist states of Central and Eastern Europe, in general. Romanian historiography highlights, using the available archival documentation, this fundamental option of Romanian foreign policy

From the Romanian point of view, relations with France are essential for building a coherent national security strategy and ensuring compliance with agreements and alliances: Little Entente, Balkan Entente and Polish-Romanian alliance. Romanian approaches to France will culminate after more than two years of negotiations, with the signing of the Franco-Romanian treaty of alliance and friendship, followed, on June 10, 1926, by a military convention
(...)

Romania and Poland in France's Soviet policy: the difficulty to establish a "united front"
from 1924 to 1935, relations between France, Romania and Poland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union were marked by the French desire to establish its influence in Central Eastern Europe. Paris intends to maintain a united front between its two allies in order to forge a deterrent force against the East and to avoid any direct involvement in the region. Polish-Romanian unity should also make it possible to keep Berlin and Moscow away from each other. From 1924 to the Litvinov Protocol of 1929, Paris played a complex game consisting in supporting its allies while avoiding any tension with their Soviet neighbour. With the progressive involvement of the Soviet Union in questions of security in Europe, Franco-Polish-Romanian cohesion lost its vigor. Focused on the problem of Bessarabia, Bucharest is an obstacle to Franco-Soviet and Polish-Soviet rapprochement. From 1933, when Romania became part of the axis linking Paris to Moscow, Poland refused French security policy and intended to pursue a policy of bilateral balance between Germany and the USSR. At the end of 1935, the lack of coherence between the three allies could only benefit Nazi Germany, which was now ready for violent attacks.

(...) September 1939
In the aftermath of the outbreak of the war, Romania has only one option left: neutrality. Entering the war to support Poland or other open actions in favor of the Franco-British allies would, according to the analyzes of the time and later, be suicide. By declaring its neutrality on September 6, 1939, the Romanian government did not break with the allies.

Seen from Bucharest, the decision of Romanian neutrality provides France with significant assistance in the overall strategy of the war against Germany. Missions carried out in Romania, such as the military mission of General Weygand or the economic mission of Captain Jacques Lemaigre Dubreuil, testify to the French interest in Romanians and the extent of the collaboration between the two countries. The interval from September 1939 to May 1940 was also a period of extensive negotiations aimed at destabilizing Germany from the Balkans. On September 11, thanks to the Romanian representatives in Paris, the allies open negotiations with the Bucharest authorities for the establishment of an action plan providing for the destruction of oil wells, refineries and means of transporting fuel in case of economic pressure or open aggression from the Axis powers.
(...)
A Franco-British military mission under the direction of General Weygand is set up to settle the details of cooperation with the General Staff and the Romanian Special Intelligence Service. Unfortunately, the French defeat in May 1940 and the negligence of the French 2e Bureau led to the loss of the plans for the operation and other cooperative arrangements between the two states.

June 1940
The French defeat in May 1940 and the first aggressions suffered by the Romanian State in the summer of 1940 put Romania definitively on the belligerent side.

[ljadw]

Roumania Yugoslavia and Czechoslvakia formed the Petite Entente and Roumania in particular had stronger links with France than Germany for a quantity of reasons not to mention that this latin nation was a former ally during the Great War
in the Interwars France counted Roumania as a potential pro-allied country and didn't cease to try to build an alliance system with the Petite Entente and enlarge it to Greece and Turkey in order to plan until the spring 1940 something like a second Front in the Balkans as in the Great War

Revue Historique des Armées n°244 France-Roumanie
https://journals.openedition.org/rha/392

Les Relations Franco-Roumaines
Romania's national security strategy is traditionally oriented towards France and Great Britain, its allies during the Great War and guarantors of the system of international relations established by the Treaty of Versailles. This orientation, which will never be contested by the Romanian leaders, constitutes one of the features defining the foreign policy of the Romanian State between 1918 and 1944.
France's support for Romania during the Great War and the constitution of Greater Romania, in 1918, determined this choice. Faced with the new risk of war, France, having set up a network of alliances and security pacts bringing together the States of Central and Eastern Europe favorable to the maintenance of peace (the Little Entente) and to the coherence of the system of international relations, imposes itself as the essential partner of Romania, in particular, and of the small anti-fascist states of Central and Eastern Europe, in general. Romanian historiography highlights, using the available archival documentation, this fundamental option of Romanian foreign policy

From the Romanian point of view, relations with France are essential for building a coherent national security strategy and ensuring compliance with agreements and alliances: Little Entente, Balkan Entente and Polish-Romanian alliance. Romanian approaches to France will culminate after more than two years of negotiations, with the signing of the Franco-Romanian treaty of alliance and friendship, followed, on June 10, 1926, by a military convention
(...)

Romania and Poland in France's Soviet policy: the difficulty to establish a "united front"
from 1924 to 1935, relations between France, Romania and Poland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union were marked by the French desire to establish its influence in Central Eastern Europe. Paris intends to maintain a united front between its two allies in order to forge a deterrent force against the East and to avoid any direct involvement in the region. Polish-Romanian unity should also make it possible to keep Berlin and Moscow away from each other. From 1924 to the Litvinov Protocol of 1929, Paris played a complex game consisting in supporting its allies while avoiding any tension with their Soviet neighbour. With the progressive involvement of the Soviet Union in questions of security in Europe, Franco-Polish-Romanian cohesion lost its vigor. Focused on the problem of Bessarabia, Bucharest is an obstacle to Franco-Soviet and Polish-Soviet rapprochement. From 1933, when Romania became part of the axis linking Paris to Moscow, Poland refused French security policy and intended to pursue a policy of bilateral balance between Germany and the USSR. At the end of 1935, the lack of coherence between the three allies could only benefit Nazi Germany, which was now ready for violent attacks.

(...) September 1939
In the aftermath of the outbreak of the war, Romania has only one option left: neutrality. Entering the war to support Poland or other open actions in favor of the Franco-British allies would, according to the analyzes of the time and later, be suicide. By declaring its neutrality on September 6, 1939, the Romanian government did not break with the allies.

Seen from Bucharest, the decision of Romanian neutrality provides France with significant assistance in the overall strategy of the war against Germany. Missions carried out in Romania, such as the military mission of General Weygand or the economic mission of Captain Jacques Lemaigre Dubreuil, testify to the French interest in Romanians and the extent of the collaboration between the two countries. The interval from September 1939 to May 1940 was also a period of extensive negotiations aimed at destabilizing Germany from the Balkans. On September 11, thanks to the Romanian representatives in Paris, the allies open negotiations with the Bucharest authorities for the establishment of an action plan providing for the destruction of oil wells, refineries and means of transporting fuel in case of economic pressure or open aggression from the Axis powers.
(...)
A Franco-British military mission under the direction of General Weygand is set up to settle the details of cooperation with the General Staff and the Romanian Special Intelligence Service. Unfortunately, the French defeat in May 1940 and the negligence of the French 2e Bureau led to the loss of the plans for the operation and other cooperative arrangements between the two states.

June 1940
The French defeat in May 1940 and the first aggressions suffered by the Romanian State in the summer of 1940 put Romania definitively on the belligerent side.

The Petite Entente had ceased to exist as a buffer against Germany before WW2 , it was directed against Hungary ,besides the role of Romania and Poland was to constitute a Cordon Sanitaire against the SU.
In 1923 the Romanian ambassador in Warsaw said that Poland was unwilling to join the Petite Entente .
Romania did not help Poland in its wars against the SU and Ukraine, nor when it was attacked by Germany .
The only ally France could expect against Germany was Poland . Romania had no border with Germany and the relations between Poland and the Czechs were very bad .
That was one of the reasons why France abandoned the whole region at the end of the 1920s ,the other reason being that France did not need Poland and thus would not fight for Poland .

[ljadw]

These 79 Jews ( not a fake number ) were murdered by non Jewish Poles because they were considered as Jewish .
''Which country did threat their people better '' is a false question,as,what other countries did to their minorities can not be used as an excuse for what Poland did to its minorities .
The question should be : did Poland treat its minorities as it did treat the Polish majority ?
And the answer is clear,very clear : there were two groups of citizens in Poland : the Poles and those who were considered as non Poles by those who claimed the exclusive right to be Poles .And both groups were not treated on the same way .

You've just admitted that Poland, regarding minorities, was no different than most advanced liberal countries of that period.
You've just admitted that in Poland, a Jew was more likely to die by choking on a chicken bone than being killed because "considered as Jewish."

But that's not enough. Poland, a hundred years ago, to not be evil must have been equal to modern woke liberal democracies, where minorities are worshiped and the European culture vilified.
Why? Please explain.

You first said that before the war Jews in Poland were protected, now you admit that they were persecuted as in other ( liberal and non liberal countries ).

[ljadw]

That's a nice idea that the "lesser people" of Eastern Europe didn't like democracy and free elections.
And that they were incapable of governing their countries post-war and required US occupation forces.

Who was talking about the lesser people of Eastern Europe ?
Who said that they were incapable of governing their countries post-war and required US occupation forces ?
Who said that they didn't like democracy and free elections ?
Stop with putting things in the mouth of other people they did not say .
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had been German allies and as Germany ,after their defeat, they would be occupied,if not by the Soviets, by the US .

[gebhk]

Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had been German allies and as Germany ,after their defeat, they would be occupied,if not by the Soviets, by the US .

And you know this how?

[Princess Perfume]

Some left wingers are still bitter that socialism collapsed at the end of the Cold War once the use and threat of force was removed, i see.

[Terry Duncan]

Just a quick reminder for the moment, but can people play nice and not allow things to get personal? Also, it would be nice if there was some attempt to return to the actual topic of this thread, as it may well get locked otherwise.