Germany's Best Victory

[VikingTiger]

This has contributed to the current anomally whereby although the Crimea is part of the Ukraine, most of its population is Russian.

Hi Sid, let's be clear that historically Crimia never belonged to Ukraine and ethnic Ukrainian population never exceeded 1-2% of Crimea population. Russia throughout its history was engaged in many wars with Tartars (anchestors of Mongols who invaded some Russian territories in 13,14 and 15th centuries)and Turkey (sometimes supported by England) in 18th and 19th centuary to win-back Crimea and set up Sevastopol as the main base of the Black Sea fleet. Needless to say that Ukraine at that times part of Russian Empire had nothing to do with Russian Army and Russian Fleet victories in Crimean Wars. It was only because of ex-Soviet leader Nikita Khruchev (ethnic Ukrainian) who decided to transfer Crimea from Russian Republic of USSR to Ukrainian Republic of USSR that Crimea today turned out to be part of Ukraine. Another person who was involved in this affair is Boris Eltsin who did not demand Crimea back to Russia in 1991 when USSR was dissolved and independent Ukraine was established.

Best Regards from Russia,

And it is of remarkable notice here that the brits have been on the side of the turks for ages against the russians. Frankly speaking, we can thank and bless the Russia of old for contributing to tilting the Turkish empire back and away from Europe. Actually, hadn't the british intervened the last time, it is very likely Turkey would not have had any more foothold in Europe today.

Which leaves us back to one of the greatest perils and subtleties of WWII, the unprecedented endorsements and blessings from various muslim factions towards Hitler. This is a bit undug history in WWII, but clearly of more actuality in these days as Western Europe is about to descend into dark ages as every day goes.

How ironic it would be so few years after the <so-called> iron curtain fell, if a new free world should arise east of Bug. What a tweak of final irony, It will be up to the current appeasers in Western Europe to avoid this fate.

I am not too optimistic.

Viking Tiger.

[sid guttridge]

Hi VT,

I don't think the British have been on the side of Turkey for ages against the Russians. Just during much of the 19th Century, when Britain and Russia were competing for influence in Central Asia. At that stage it was strategically important that Russia did not get control of "The Straits" between Europe and Asia as this would threaten British imperial communications across the Mediterranean. NATO has followed a similar logic since WWII.

The Russians were not the only people involved in turning back the Turks. The Poles prevented the fall of Vienna to the Turks. The Austrians and Hungarians then forced them south into the Balkans. The local Balkan peoples had their own role as well. For example, a third of the army that besieged the Turks in Plevna were Romanians. The First Balkan War, which in 1912 reduced Turkey to its smallest foothold in Europe for four hundred years, involved the Montenergrins, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars but no Russians. Certainly Russia had a role in driving back the Turks, but it was hardly alone.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Henk85]

Operation Barbarossa. 3 million Russian soldiers were captured and 6000 Russian tanks were destroyed in two Engagements. One is Smolensk and the other one I don't know. They bombed Kiev the capital of Ukraine. Couples of peoples were taken prisoners.

[VikingTiger]

Hi VT,

I don't think the British have been on the side of Turkey for ages against the Russians. Just during much of the 19th Century, when Britain and Russia were competing for influence in Central Asia. At that stage it was strategically important that Russia did not get control of "The Straits" between Europe and Asia as this would threaten British imperial communications across the Mediterranean. NATO has followed a similar logic since WWII.

It is a fact beyond any dispute that the british sacrificed principles for sheer geoplitical manouvering by repetitively backing turks during the Crimean wars and also on Balkan later on. The fact that NATO has continued this sell-off policy in modern time doesn't make things much better. Russia has done more to stand up for islamofascism than the spineless west ever will and soon enough this will be more obvious to everybody.

The Russians were not the only people involved in turning back the Turks. The Poles prevented the fall of Vienna to the Turks. The Austrians and Hungarians then forced them south into the Balkans. The local Balkan peoples had their own role as well. For example, a third of the army that besieged the Turks in Plevna were Romanians. The First Balkan War, which in 1912 reduced Turkey to its smallest foothold in Europe for four hundred years, involved the Montenergrins, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars but no Russians. Certainly Russia had a role in driving back the Turks, but it was hardly alone.

I agree with you Russia was not alone in history, but just try to imagine Russia losing the wars on Crimea in the 1800's and you will soon enough realize how an outstanding contribution the Russian empire has done to modern European stability. As a matter of fact, had Hitler managed to recruit Turkey on his side in WW2, maybe we wouldn't have had any Turkish presence in Europe today, with occupied Konstantinopolis being transferred to Bulgaria or becoming a Sovjet enclave.
Cheers,

Sid.

Today, Russia is playing a more ambigious geopolitical role on the world scene, but be certain that in case of great crisis, they will stand on the right side- AND PREVAIL...

[sid guttridge]

Hi VT,

Your last post is a bit confusing because it looks as though I am replying to myself!

Certainly Britain acted pragmatically out of self interest in supporting the Turks on occasion. Every country acts out of self interest. It is the norm. But what are these principles you suggest she sacrificed? Britain had no dog in any struggle between Russian Orthodoxy and Turkish Islam. And Kemal Ataturk's westernising Turkey was hardly more alien than the USSR.

Russia has stood up to Islamofascism? By helping Iran build a nuclear reactor?

If Turkey had joined Hitler at the right moment it is equally possible that the USSR would have lost its war with Germany. All the Turkic SSRs were unreliable and Pan-Turanism might well have set them aflame. It is possible that Turkish neutrality saved the USSR and with it Russia. Bulgaria and Russia have no historical claim on Constantinople. It was always a Greek city before the Turks captured it.

Certainly Russia has had a role in European geo-political stability - and instability as well.

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

Sid - stabbing aggrieved finger on the table - Constaninople may have been full of Greeks, but it was a ROMAN city! LOL

Turkey going into the Axis may not have automtically have led to the defeat of Russia, but it WOULD have given Germany final access to the Caucasus, and removed her fuel worries. Russia may not have been defeated, but Germany almost certainly wouldn't have been either.....Imagine the effect that would have had on the war in the Mediterranean! Would certainly have put Cyprus under threat, and removed the pivotal role of Malta in blocking Axis' supply lines to Tunisia. If they'd come in after the invasion of Sicil or Italy, a third of the Med would have been out of bounds again, ALL supplying would have had to have been via North Africa and Gibraltar....which would have brought the Germans down on Gibraltar through Spain, Operation Felix. So the cascade effect would have brought Franco into the war at last, either WITH the Germans, or demilitarised like German-occupied post-Mussolini Italy.

IF Turkey had at the end ofthe war been occupied by Russia, there would have been hell to pay, there is NO way the British would have stood for the Russians sitting next door to the Persian oil fields. If the Russians wouldn't have been willing for an Austria-type Occupying Powers division again, then this was potentially the most dangerous flashpoint area for trouble between East and West immediately after the war.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Phylo,

I fear you have damaged your finger needlessly! Byzantium was always a Greek-speaking city, even within the Roman Empire. Constantine only made the city a co-capital of the Roman Empire. He didn't found it. The Byzantine Empire was Greek speaking, not Latin speaking.

Nobody said that Turkey joining the Axis would automatically have given Germany victory.

You are overlooking one of the two most important points about a Turkish entry into the war - Pan-Turanism. This is the belief in a union of Turkic peoples. The captured Soviet Turkic troops were amongst the most easily enlisted by the Wehrmacht anyway. If Pan-Turanism had inflamed the five out of 15 Soviet republics that were Turkic, the USSR would have had a major problem in its rear. It was only about ten years since the last Turkic resistance had been suppressed.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Andy H]

It seems rather strange that modern or post war events eem to crop up within a thread dealing with Germanys 'Best Victory', whatever that really means

Regards

[sid guttridge]

Hi CY,

It is partly my fault. Whenever they do crop up and I think there is an inaccuracy, I tend to put in a correction, thereby provoking further off-thread responses. However, the alternative is to let the inaccuracies stand, which I think is even less helpful. Sorry.

Cheers,

Sid.