Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "Did Poland bring on her own Destruction in 1939 because of her Aggressive Foreign Policy?" video.

  1.  @A.B.5KRVw  No, the difference is that one was a genocidal dictatorship responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions and the other was the typical run-of-the-mill early 20th century military dictatorship. Poland was no saint, but they didn't slaughter millions of their own people.
    4
  2. It's hilarious how the crowd that screams ethnic cleansing with little to no evidence regarding countries like Poland and Ukraine are the same crowd that either ignores or justifies the actual ethnic cleansing undertaken in those areas by the German and Russian Empires during the 19th century.
    4
  3. Got a source for that?
    3
  4. Like what?
    3
  5. Go outside, touch some grass, and stop reading Moskal propaganda.
    2
  6. And what you're ignoring is that the Soviets had no legal claim to the lands in question either. The Soviets wanted territories that were never Soviet, essentially. Poland's Eastern lands used to be part of the Ukrainian Peoples' Republic and the Belarusian Democratic Republic, two countries that the Soviet Union invaded and destroyed in what were arguably wars of conquest, completely contradicting Lenin's promise of independence for national minorities of the old Russian Empire. Poland too was invaded by the Soviets, but was beaten back, leading to Poland absorbing the Western parts of Ukraine and Belarus, lands which belonged to Poland centuries prior anyway during the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Most of the people of Ukraine and Belarus did not want to be part of Poland, but that doesn't imply they wanted to be Soviet either, or would've preferred the Soviet Union to Poland. The Soviets were about as friendly to the Ukrainian and Belarusian national movements as the Poles were, so I don't see how transferring the lands over would've been an improvement from the point of view of the people living there.
    2
  7. The Soviets forcibly occupied Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe after the war against the wishes of the people living there, and the Allies did not have the stomach for more war by that point. To stay the West was happy with, or approved of this arrangement would be dishonest.
    2
  8. As was every other country in Eastern Europe at the time, USSR included.
    2
  9. Only difference there is that NY State had no history of being "Canadian territory." Compare that to the Polish Corridor and Gdansk, which were both Polish for hundreds of years before the Prussians stole them during the Partitions.
    2
  10.  @VespasianJudea  Go touch grass
    1
  11.  @ravanpee1325  And how did Prussia end up with Poznań in the first place?
    1
  12.  @aAverageFan  Poland took it without any real cooperation with the Germans. They simply took advantage of the situation, there was no "alliance" with Germany, unlike the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Russians had with Germany.
    1
  13.  @aAverageFan  And the USSR was the first country to sign a military pact with Germany.
    1
  14.  @aAverageFan  Nope, USSR again. Like I explained, Poland took their disputed area from Czechoslovakia without cooperation with Germany, there was no agreement made.
    1
  15.  @aAverageFan  The USSR invaded Ukraine and Belarus first. Both were independent nations that were either Allied with or in the process of forging an alliance with Poland.
    1
  16. Not really close in that example too because the Polish Corridor was Polish for hundreds of years until the Prussians stole in during the Partitions. A more accurate analogy would be British Columbia being originally Canadian, then the US took it in some war a century ago, and it was recently given back to Canada.
    1
  17.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  What history of the era? What books?
    1
  18.  @aAverageFan  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
    1
  19. How so? Prussia, Austria, and Russia had no right to take it in the 18th century. Poland getting reformed at their experience is justice.
    1
  20. Zoomer Historian is just a dumb kid that gets most of his information from David Irving novels he never cites. Watched a video some time ago, wish I could remember the same, of another history YouTuber basically combing through zoomer's videos and cross-referencing them with David Irving novels, finding numerous examples of direct quotes being taken.
    1
  21.  @-ED-  Fascism is Socialism. Socialism is collective control of the means of production and distribution of goods. Fascism is when the nation (the state) has complete control over all aspects of life. This naturally includes the economy, which would automatically make Fascism inherently Socialist since the state is a collective entity. Capitalism is pretty much the opposite of both these ideologies because Capitalism revolves around the individual, Fascism and Socialism revolve around collectives.
    1
  22.  @VespasianJudea  You got a source for that?
    1
  23. Poland took land from the Czechs that the Czechs had taken from the Poles 20 years earlier by stealing it while Poland was busy with wars on it's Eastern border.
    1
  24. Your grandfather was correct. Jews were expelled on numerous occasions from many different countries and kingdoms. Most of that happened centuries earlier than the period of discussion though: the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, and the reasons were likely perceived. I find it hard to believe the Jews of that time were seriously trying to overthrow governments.
    1