Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greece about to demand 280 billion euro in war reparations from Germany

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Greece about to demand 280 billion euro in war reparations from Germany

    https://greece.greekreporter.com/201...-from-germany/

    Important step, I support it. I think Poland should join Greece and group petition should be filed against Germany

  • jordan_rudess
    replied
    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

    And indeed there are literally 1000s of German companies in existence today, not to mention many thousands more no longer in existence, who have been adversely affected by Poland's illegal occupation of territory in Eastern Germany under the assumption that the 1953 treaty was no longer valid.

    I'm pretty sure that the German Government would be more than willing to assist German companies get justice from the Polish government in the event that German companies have been robbed of profits, growth and assets given the illegal occupation of German territory up to 1990 by Poland.

    QED

    Germany very early on in the peace wisely decided to put all this to rest - as did just about every other country. The only winners from this shit on both sides of the fence are ultimately lawyers.
    QEbullshit.
    No aussieinbg, there would even be no "trial" of such kind. It doesn't work that way in international commercial law. International commercial law disputes are about breaching the CONTRACT between two parties. And to even have a possibility to sue a country in such dispute there must exist an arbitration clause in a contract before.
    You demonstrate absolut 0 knowledge about law in this topic and keep making a fool of yourself

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    An interesting question would be what percentage of Poland's GDP would do on the bureaucracy to support their government doing battle with all the bureaucratic stuff that Germany could throw at Poland as a result of the invalidation of the 1953 treaty...
    0 percent


    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I don't think that this particular person would be the best example to support any hypothesis you might want to proffer about me personally...
    I think she is, she just came here and saw through you in seconds

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    In any case, whining about "arguing for the sake of arguing" is very much a butthurt-generated tu quoque usually blurted out to try and halt debate. I've yet to hear this from anyone on the winning side of a debate
    I've already won this debate aussieinbg, you don't have the slightest idea about what you're babbling about in this topic

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    It also makes its way into international law as mentioned...
    Yes and I've mentioned where and how

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    The ideas I've used regarding Germany suing Poland for loss of use of territory illegally seized are not my own original ones - they were from someone whose speciality is International Law talking about how to get back at a neighbouring country he didn't like. In general, governments don't encourage this sort of thing because often the best course of action is "let sleeping dogs lie".
    Pathetic ad verecundiam from you here

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    You're speaking as if Poland has a pure clean pair of hands in all this...
    Poland was first of all betrayed in all this. 3 times in the period of 1939-1945

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    C2... there is C2 in CPE then there is C2. "For whatever reason", you've never talked about whether the grade for your "C2" was "A", "B" or "C". This might tell us more about the probability on the day of it being a fluke or not. Furthermore, you've never told us how many times you've sat the CPE before getting your desired result. For example, scoring overall 201 is not much different from scoring 199, barely anything in it but luck on the day for many reasons...

    I'm sure you scored a perfect scaled 230 out of 230 on the reading section of the CPA and can walk into a CPA exam any time you wish without any training or preparation and continue to score 230 out of 230. However, from what I've seen of your English thus far on the forum, I'm quite certain that your C2 was definitely not in band "A".

    I'd demonstrated earlier to show that it was not merely unsubstantiated ranting regarding your reading comprehension skills. You lack some basics in reading comprehension which are highly evident. In all seriousness, I'd get them fixed up if you don't want to turn a high-flying career in law into serving the dregs of society and barely making a living.
    You have demonstrated shit, you took my link, tried to bullshit about what "I didn't notice" in it and yes started your unsubstantiated ranting.
    And not for whatever reason, for privacy reason, same as false photo in my profile. I may say I didn't get A from this exam, but you won't get exact score from me

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Just pointing out before that you are bullshitting that there was absolutely not any support for the Communists during their time there.
    During their time? You've just mentioned 1991 it was not their time anymore. You seem to have problems with comprehension skills

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Hard times in post-Communist Poland and suddenly all these people are reminiscing about how good Poland was under the Communists yet not blaming the communists for completely fucking up the economy and handing it over totally messed up?
    Of course. For common people it's more important to have a job nothing else. I'd like to remind that post communists have won the 1993 elections in Poland exactly for this reason. People decided that Solidarity just doesn't know what to do and will destroy everything even more.

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    You haven't explained anything.
    Of course I did

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    That's often the case of recognition of governments by other governments. It's not justice, it's law.

    "Cry to Mama" when the law isn't doing what you want it to do as told to me by a lawyer I'd known when describing situations of clients or other lawyers whining about decisions.
    Oh of course law is doing what I want

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    It gets messier when international law becomes involved as I understand.
    You understand next to 0 about this topic

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Poland's claims are not very clear at all and in fact on the basis of evidence it would seem that Poland would most likely come off 2nd best if they so chose to pursue such claims - even if they had any sort of basis in international law.
    We have full basis in international law, as presented in previous post

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    As for Greece, I'm pretty sure that Germany would have tied up all the loose ends a long time ago - they are far more efficient than Greek bureaucracy who put more effort into afternoon sessions with ouzo or coffee than actually getting work done. All this is evident in the manner in which financial crises strike Greece with almost monotonous regularity.

    That the Greek government is "out of the blue" coming up with all this sort of thing merely suggests that the next legislative elections are coming up for Greece in a year's time and that they need an issue to continue to pound at to rally the faithful. Bashing Germany to side-track from the fact that Greece got into severe debt as a result of massive waste and general corruption is the real issue here.
    You keep bullshitting. Greece has exactly the same basis in inetrnational law as Poland for this clam: war crimes are NOT barred by time limitations. We might as well go on with this claim next 70 years and it will be equally legitimate

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Perhaps you need to talk about Greece now to sidetrack from Poland's situation if they chose to pursue things
    Nothing will happen to Poland as I explained in this and my previous replies, from which certain fragments you prefer to ignore for your own convenience btw

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Recognition of governments which are the result of free and fair democratic elections seems to be more the exception rather than the rule world-wide.
    Poland is not some god damned eastern africa country. For us it was a standard

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    The Communist governments suffered by Poland were not just. However, their recognition is a fact in international law.
    Still they had no right to take (or in this case resign) any claims in the name of Polish people

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I'm awaiting your refutation based on evidence of the facts presented to you, rather than your verbal masturbatory empty rhetoric - in particular the internationally recognised government in Poland's role in matters.
    I've already did that. Not my fault that you don't like these facts

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    In short - just as Germans today bear the consequences of what Nazis in the name of "Germany" did, so too does Poland bear the internationals consequences of what the Communists did in the name of Poland.
    In the name of Russia and under the russian rifles not in the name of Poland. And Germans are unwilling to bear any consequences as evident from this thread

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    You keep bullshiting aussieinbg, international commercial disputes are a part of PRIVATE law
    Of course a company or a private person can sue government based on lucrum cessans. But not two countries
    And indeed there are literally 1000s of German companies in existence today, not to mention many thousands more no longer in existence, who have been adversely affected by Poland's illegal occupation of territory in Eastern Germany under the assumption that the 1953 treaty was no longer valid.

    I'm pretty sure that the German Government would be more than willing to assist German companies get justice from the Polish government in the event that German companies have been robbed of profits, growth and assets given the illegal occupation of German territory up to 1990 by Poland.

    QED

    Germany very early on in the peace wisely decided to put all this to rest - as did just about every other country. The only winners from this shit on both sides of the fence are ultimately lawyers.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Yup, so where is that perspective? If you mean that what you presented above, then you both must be joking.
    An interesting question would be what percentage of Poland's GDP would do on the bureaucracy to support their government doing battle with all the bureaucratic stuff that Germany could throw at Poland as a result of the invalidation of the 1953 treaty...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    No, I'm just confirming a factually true observation of Laura
    I don't think that this particular person would be the best example to support any hypothesis you might want to proffer about me personally...

    In any case, whining about "arguing for the sake of arguing" is very much a butthurt-generated tu quoque usually blurted out to try and halt debate. I've yet to hear this from anyone on the winning side of a debate

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Actually lucrum cesans is being discussed as a part of Roman law and yes I've had it on my 1st year already
    It also makes its way into international law as mentioned...

    The ideas I've used regarding Germany suing Poland for loss of use of territory illegally seized are not my own original ones - they were from someone whose speciality is International Law talking about how to get back at a neighbouring country he didn't like. In general, governments don't encourage this sort of thing because often the best course of action is "let sleeping dogs lie".

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    If we're discussing that treaty strictly, then yes. But consider what is more important, that Polish people shut up finally because they feel they have been treated justly? Or try to bullshit your way out of this problem via law. It's up to you westerners
    You're speaking as if Poland has a pure clean pair of hands in all this...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Actually yes it does. This switching territories was done by Stalin completely above our heads and without asking Polish people about anything. So any German claims about illegal occupation of their eastern territories should be targeted to Russians
    "Law" and "justice" are two often totally different things...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    My comprehension skills are perfect aussieinbg just you are trying to bullshit me about law and I won't allow that because it's my field. Not to mention I have papers for my C2 level, any compaints should be sent to Cambridge Univ
    C2... there is C2 in CPE then there is C2. "For whatever reason", you've never talked about whether the grade for your "C2" was "A", "B" or "C". This might tell us more about the probability on the day of it being a fluke or not. Furthermore, you've never told us how many times you've sat the CPE before getting your desired result. For example, scoring overall 201 is not much different from scoring 199, barely anything in it but luck on the day for many reasons...

    I'm sure you scored a perfect scaled 230 out of 230 on the reading section of the CPA and can walk into a CPA exam any time you wish without any training or preparation and continue to score 230 out of 230. However, from what I've seen of your English thus far on the forum, I'm quite certain that your C2 was definitely not in band "A".

    I'd demonstrated earlier to show that it was not merely unsubstantiated ranting regarding your reading comprehension skills. You lack some basics in reading comprehension which are highly evident. In all seriousness, I'd get them fixed up if you don't want to turn a high-flying career in law into serving the dregs of society and barely making a living.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    In 1991? Once again you;re bullshitting aussieinbg. There was no communism anymore in 1991, but the beginning of economic transformation at that time. Balcerowicz reforms caused immediate rise of unemployment from 0 to 20% and caused resentments. That is what you saw nothing else
    Just pointing out before that you are bullshitting that there was absolutely not any support for the Communists during their time there. Hard times in post-Communist Poland and suddenly all these people are reminiscing about how good Poland was under the Communists yet not blaming the communists for completely fucking up the economy and handing it over totally messed up?

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    There is basis in national law, as I have already explained.
    You haven't explained anything.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    No, the only potential problem is that communists did not win any elections in Poland. They had no right to represent Polish people on any international forum. It's incredible that you're trying to give legitimacy to the puppet communist government just because it suits your interests
    That's often the case of recognition of governments by other governments. It's not justice, it's law.

    "Cry to Mama" when the law isn't doing what you want it to do as told to me by a lawyer I'd known when describing situations of clients or other lawyers whining about decisions.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    On what basis? Lucrum cessans maybe? Told you, if you adapot private law for such cases, then usucaption enters and Poland gains ownership of these lands automatically even as possesor in bad faith (which is not the case here), so don't test your luck
    It gets messier when international law becomes involved as I understand.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    You have presented no documentation here. On the other hand the basis in international law for Polish (and Greek) claim are very clear. No time limitations in responsibility for war crimes is one of the basic principles of international law.
    Poland's claims are not very clear at all and in fact on the basis of evidence it would seem that Poland would most likely come off 2nd best if they so chose to pursue such claims - even if they had any sort of basis in international law.

    As for Greece, I'm pretty sure that Germany would have tied up all the loose ends a long time ago - they are far more efficient than Greek bureaucracy who put more effort into afternoon sessions with ouzo or coffee than actually getting work done. All this is evident in the manner in which financial crises strike Greece with almost monotonous regularity.

    That the Greek government is "out of the blue" coming up with all this sort of thing merely suggests that the next legislative elections are coming up for Greece in a year's time and that they need an issue to continue to pound at to rally the faithful. Bashing Germany to side-track from the fact that Greece got into severe debt as a result of massive waste and general corruption is the real issue here.

    Perhaps you need to talk about Greece now to sidetrack from Poland's situation if they chose to pursue things

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Polish people did not choose these totalitarian scumbags in any elections therefore it had no right to represent Polish nation - get over it
    Recognition of governments which are the result of free and fair democratic elections seems to be more the exception rather than the rule world-wide. The Communist governments suffered by Poland were not just. However, their recognition is a fact in international law.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Ok. I'm waiting.
    There is 0 evidence and if you claim damages for just deportations per se, then please turn your demands to those who run things in Poland at that time that is Russia
    I'm awaiting your refutation based on evidence of the facts presented to you, rather than your verbal masturbatory empty rhetoric - in particular the internationally recognised government in Poland's role in matters.

    In short - just as Germans today bear the consequences of what Nazis in the name of "Germany" did, so too does Poland bear the internationals consequences of what the Communists did in the name of Poland.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordan_rudess
    replied
    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

    Here's the definition of "Lucrum Cessans" for everyone:

    http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/...5369380-e-1342

    And indeed Lucrum Cessans gets used all the time in international commercial disputes, e.g. some recent ones:

    http://opil.ouplaw.com/browse;jsessi...f-c1927c3ed365

    What you might have noticed is that many disputes involving "Lucrum Cessans" consist of at least one party who is a national government...
    You keep bullshiting aussieinbg, international commercial disputes are a part of PRIVATE law
    Of course a company or a private person can sue government based on lucrum cessans. But not two countries

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    The perspective I'm giving is actually via someone I've known who actually practises international law - he gave his opinion to me about the similar conditions applying as for Germany-Poland in another analogous situation..
    Yup, so where is that perspective? If you mean that what you presented above, then you both must be joking.

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    "arguing for the sake of arguing" is a typical ad hominen attack used by those who don't have evidence to counter your claims. From empirical experience, it's usually a sign that the person you are debating knows he or she is losing, is butthurt and into ranting and venting.
    No, I'm just confirming a factually true observation of Laura

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I doubt that too many 1st year law courses include anything genuinely substantial about international law... that comes later on.
    Actually lucrum cesans is being discussed as a part of Roman law and yes I've had it on my 1st year already

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Indeed - hence notions of "swapping east of the Curzon Line for east of the Oder-Neisse Line" hold no water in terms of basis in law.
    If we're discussing that treaty strictly, then yes. But consider what is more important, that Polish people shut up finally because they feel they have been treated justly? Or try to bullshit your way out of this problem via law. It's up to you westerners

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    If Poland want to argue the toss about territories east of the Curzon Line, then that doesn't really concern Germany.
    Actually yes it does. This switching territories was done by Stalin completely above our heads and without asking Polish people about anything. So any German claims about illegal occupation of their eastern territories should be targeted to Russians

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I don't generally have students with your demonstrably substandard reading comprehension skills crowing all the time that "their level of English is C2"
    My comprehension skills are perfect aussieinbg just you are trying to bullshit me about law and I won't allow that because it's my field. Not to mention I have papers for my C2 level, any compaints should be sent to Cambridge Univ

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    An attempt to switch and bait of yours, but I'll bite and sever a few of your fingers in the process.

    I totally agree that the Communist government in Poland were a complete bunch of scumbags. I got to travel quite extensively in Poland in 1991 and saw the immediate aftermath with my own eyes. There were actually quite a few supporters of the Communist government there, which had surprised me. So, at the outset I'd have to say that it's bullshit that there wasn't genuine and significant support for the Communist government in Poland. After all, it essentially lasted 45 years there.
    In 1991? Once again you;re bullshitting aussieinbg. There was no communism anymore in 1991, but the beginning of economic transformation at that time. Balcerowicz reforms caused immediate rise of unemployment from 0 to 20% and caused resentments. That is what you saw nothing else

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    In any case, there is no real basis in law - the Communist government there was internationally recognised and the 1953 treaty still holds from the perspective of being signed by a legitimate Polish government.
    There is basis in national law, as I have already explained.

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    The only potential problem is not with recognition of the Polish government but with that of the DDR which was not being recognised by, for example the US, until 1974. However...

    Firstly, the treaty between the united Germany and Poland pretty much reaffirms previous treaties between the DDR and Poland such as the 1953 one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...r_Treaty_(1990)
    No, the only potential problem is that communists did not win any elections in Poland. They had no right to represent Polish people on any international forum. It's incredible that you're trying to give legitimacy to the puppet communist government just because it suits your interests

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Secondly, if you take the 1953 treaty as being totally invalid for whatever reason, then Poland is still up for roughly 45 years of useage of German territory from 1945 to 1990 plus accruing interest charges over the intervening 28+ years. I'm sure there's quite a few trillion's worth there...
    On what basis? Lucrum cessans maybe? Told you, if you adapot private law for such cases, then usucaption enters and Poland gains ownership of these lands automatically even as possesor in bad faith (which is not the case here), so don't test your luck

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I'm not so sure about your bonafides as a practitioner, future or otherwise, of law. A basic bread and butter skill of pratictising law is the ability to carefully read and understand documentation.
    You have presented no documentation here. On the other hand the basis in international law for Polish (and Greek) claim are very clear. No time limitations in responsibility for war crimes is one of the basic principles of international law.

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    In short, emotive short rants from you not dealing with actual content. To say it again, Poland's communist government was recognised internationally - get over it.
    Polish people did not choose these totalitarian scumbags in any elections therefore it had no right to represent Polish nation - get over it

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    There's huge amounts of evidence of atrocities committed on former German soil against huge numbers of those of German nationality by Poland. None of that has ever been tested legally.

    Start pushing for war repatriations against Germany and I'm sure that all this and more will come out of the woodwork.
    Ok. I'm waiting.
    There is 0 evidence and if you claim damages for just deportations per se, then please turn your demands to those who run things in Poland at that time that is Russia
    Last edited by jordan_rudess; 10-13-2018, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Aussieinbg I've once told you it's not a good idea for you to teach me about law, you will just make a complete fool of yourself. No, the surprise will be completely different, your legal petition in such case will never even start a proceeding, it will just be thrown to the garbage can
    So called lucrum cessans is legal institution of PRIVATE law. Pro tip: that means you cannot really sue a country for that.
    But let's treat your idea as a sort of intellectual exercise and assume that a country can sue another country based on private law. Two legal concepts of private law you might find intresting here would be:
    - possesor in good faith
    - usucaption
    Here's the definition of "Lucrum Cessans" for everyone:

    http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/...5369380-e-1342

    And indeed Lucrum Cessans gets used all the time in international commercial disputes, e.g. some recent ones:

    http://opil.ouplaw.com/browse;jsessi...f-c1927c3ed365

    What you might have noticed is that many disputes involving "Lucrum Cessans" consist of at least one party who is a national government...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Let's leave it at that, and check what you can make out of these two
    Let's continue... the opinion I have
    The perspective I'm giving is actually via someone I've known who actually practises international law - he gave his opinion to me about the similar conditions applying as for Germany-Poland in another analogous situation..

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    In other words Laura is right, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
    "arguing for the sake of arguing" is a typical ad hominen attack used by those who don't have evidence to counter your claims. From empirical experience, it's usually a sign that the person you are debating knows he or she is losing, is butthurt and into ranting and venting.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    No need to. It's basics of law, 1st year of studies
    I doubt that too many 1st year law courses include anything genuinely substantial about international law... that comes later on.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Yes that treaty says nothing about that, it's true.
    Indeed - hence notions of "swapping east of the Curzon Line for east of the Oder-Neisse Line" hold no water in terms of basis in law.

    If Poland want to argue the toss about territories east of the Curzon Line, then that doesn't really concern Germany.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Poor these students of yours.
    I don't generally have students with your demonstrably substandard reading comprehension skills crowing all the time that "their level of English is C2"

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    I know well that is was not recognized, because two faced westerners have quickly accepted anything that was pushed by Stalin and victorious army. But that is not the point. The Supreme Power in any nation always lies in the hands of the PEOPLE not its government. This "recognized" communist government had the right to stay there in the international forum as government, because it was accepted by other govenrments. . But it had no right at all to sign anything in the name of Polish Nation. For that you need to have legitimacy from the Polish Nation, granted to you in the elections.
    This occupant government had been forcing its recognition within Polish territories with the support of Soviet Army only. Actually all treaties signed by communists 1945-1990 are not legally binding not only this one with Germans.
    An attempt to switch and bait of yours, but I'll bite and sever a few of your fingers in the process.

    I totally agree that the Communist government in Poland were a complete bunch of scumbags. I got to travel quite extensively in Poland in 1991 and saw the immediate aftermath with my own eyes. There were actually quite a few supporters of the Communist government there, which had surprised me. So, at the outset I'd have to say that it's bullshit that there wasn't genuine and significant support for the Communist government in Poland. After all, it essentially lasted 45 years there.

    In any case, there is no real basis in law - the Communist government there was internationally recognised and the 1953 treaty still holds from the perspective of being signed by a legitimate Polish government.

    The only potential problem is not with recognition of the Polish government but with that of the DDR which was not being recognised by, for example the US, until 1974. However...

    Firstly, the treaty between the united Germany and Poland pretty much reaffirms previous treaties between the DDR and Poland such as the 1953 one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...r_Treaty_(1990)

    Secondly, if you take the 1953 treaty as being totally invalid for whatever reason, then Poland is still up for roughly 45 years of useage of German territory from 1945 to 1990 plus accruing interest charges over the intervening 28+ years. I'm sure there's quite a few trillion's worth there...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Bullshit, read above
    Bullshit once again, read above.
    Yes, your ideas presented in this discussion are nothing else but verbal masturbation
    This is your evidence?
    I'm not so sure about your bonafides as a practitioner, future or otherwise, of law. A basic bread and butter skill of pratictising law is the ability to carefully read and understand documentation.

    It's a very basic skill you'd better fix up...

    In short, emotive short rants from you not dealing with actual content. To say it again, Poland's communist government was recognised internationally - get over it.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Hahaha once again feel free to sue Poland for that, the surprise will be even better than with lucrum cessans
    There's huge amounts of evidence of atrocities committed on former German soil against huge numbers of those of German nationality by Poland. None of that has ever been tested legally.

    Start pushing for war repatriations against Germany and I'm sure that all this and more will come out of the woodwork.
    Last edited by aussieinbg; 10-13-2018, 11:52 AM. Reason: Fixed link

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
    Germany paid Israel billions in reparations but you didn't protest or anything of the sort. But, there's suddenly a protest because one Polish person is requesting reparations. You're a hypocrite, plain and simple. Anyways, I think you were just playing dumb.
    Have you seen someone opening a thread here to whine about Germany being so evil with them and owing them some billions? I did not. As for getting reparations, it's not the problem in itself but nevermind.

    If i had to open a thread to tell any crybabies to stop whining abotu something and demanding reparation for something they and their parents didn't even know, I would have to spam this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tux1
    replied
    Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
    Maybe you didn't get my point : They have no legitimacy to ask anything from Germany for the WW2, neither have anybody else since we are all too young for that. In other words : It's too late.

    As for your assumption,t he PC here is much more the one who is trying to ask people who did nothing to pay by making them feel ashamed for things their grand parents did, like any typical "leftists" you are you and jordan_whining always seeing everywhere. The fact is that the method used here is very much similar to those people from EUSSR are usign to make Europeans accepting migrants here; which is "ow you have been soooo evil with those poor people, you owe them so much! Pay your debt back by givign them whatever they want without any fucking logic and justice :<<<<"

    Another fact is that aussieinbg has very well demonstrated the hypocrisy of jordan_rudess on this thread, who, I repeat, act like a big leftist or an angry Algerian/Turkish/whatever you want who want a western country that supposely owe them so much.
    Germany paid Israel billions in reparations but you didn't protest or anything of the sort. But, there's suddenly a protest because one Polish person is requesting reparations. You're a hypocrite, plain and simple. Anyways, I think you were just playing dumb.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordan_rudess
    replied
    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

    It'd be good fun calculating the interest owed by Poland to Germany due to Poland's occupation of a highly industrialised and developed part of German territory.
    I hope, for your sake, that it won't be a "surprise" of the type you've given us regarding "the real legitimate government of Poland"
    Aussieinbg I've once told you it's not a good idea for you to teach me about law, you will just make a complete fool of yourself. No, the surprise will be completely different, your legal petition in such case will never even start a proceeding, it will just be thrown to the garbage can
    So called lucrum cessans is legal institution of PRIVATE law. Pro tip: that means you cannot really sue a country for that.
    But let's treat your idea as a sort of intellectual exercise and assume that a country can sue another country based on private law. Two legal concepts of private law you might find intresting here would be:
    - possesor in good faith
    - usucaption

    Let's leave it at that, and check what you can make out of these two

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Just in case you forgot - I'm not German, I'm an Australian being in a perverted sense entertained by a bunch of Polish ultra-nationalists trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    In other words Laura is right, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    I'd actually check out what "lucrum cessans" means if I were you...
    No need to. It's basics of law, 1st year of studies

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    What actually matters is what the treaty text says. As far as I can ascertain, nothing about the Curzon Line there...
    Yes that treaty says nothing about that, it's true.


    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Nor is it my task to teach you very basic reading comprehension skills. Private students pay me good money to do that... I'll make an exception to this for reasons of entertainment value:
    As I had said, you don't have very good basic reading comprehension skills.
    From your very own link:
    Key words here are "largely unrecognised" and "without effective power". If that was not enough to actually attune you to reality, then of course it follows in more detail:
    So the main players had already ditched recognition of the Polish government in exile by 1945 and after that only a couple of 2nd string countries such as Spain and Ireland along with the Vatican. Even the Catholic Vatican finally completely ditched the Polish government in exile by 1979.

    Oh, you might want to read this:

    https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup12...overnment%20in %20exile.pdf
    Poor these students of yours. I know well that is was not recognized, because two faced westerners have quickly accepted anything that was pushed by Stalin and victorious army. But that is not the point. The Supreme Power in any nation always lies in the hands of the PEOPLE not its government. This "recognized" communist government had the right to stay there in the international forum as government, because it was accepted by other govenrments. . But it had no right at all to sign anything in the name of Polish Nation. For that you need to have legitimacy from the Polish Nation, granted to you in the elections.
    This occupant government had been forcing its recognition within Polish territories with the support of Soviet Army only. Actually all treaties signed by communists 1945-1990 are not legally binding not only this one with Germans.


    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    Even if my calculations of how much in reparations are out by 2 or three trillion dollars, it doesn't change the fact that if things went to their logical conclusion that Poland would now be owing an order of magnitude of money more to Germany than the 600-800 billion Euros that Germany owes Poland.
    Bullshit, read above


    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    It's internationally recognised governments who can execute international treaties.
    Bullshit once again, read above

    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    More rantive verbal masturbation because you are unable to refute what I've said with evidence.

    Another verbal masturbatory spurt to try avoiding substantiating a counter-opinion...
    Yes, your ideas presented in this discussion are nothing else but verbal masturbation


    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/Th...ity-You/132123

    Oh, just wondering where your evidence for your points is when you are demanding evidence from me and others... You need to come up with better evidence than links you either have not read or have reading comprehension issues with..
    This is your evidence? Hahaha once again feel free to sue Poland for that, the surprise will be even better than with lucrum cessans

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Oh sure by all means please sue us for lucrum cessans if that's what you suggest, it will be fun
    It'd be good fun calculating the interest owed by Poland to Germany due to Poland's occupation of a highly industrialised and developed part of German territory.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    There are several problems with such reasoning, but I won't spoil the surprise
    I hope, for your sake, that it won't be a "surprise" of the type you've given us regarding "the real legitimate government of Poland"

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    You
    Just in case you forgot - I'm not German, I'm an Australian being in a perverted sense entertained by a bunch of Polish ultra-nationalists trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    don't "make money of the region". People do make money who just happen to live in this or that region. Any value you create with your work is not the same as compensation for destruction of your land which is pure money with no work involved. Your "calculations" are biased simplification that can be expected from you
    I'd actually check out what "lucrum cessans" means if I were you...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Because Stalin took it from us not Germans
    Why would I? It was just Stalin's retarded plan. Take eastern land from us, deprive us German war reparations, and pay for all this is just German land.
    What actually matters is what the treaty text says. As far as I can ascertain, nothing about the Curzon Line there...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Bullshit
    Your usual verbal masturbatory spurt when trying to avoid substantiating a counter-opinion


    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    It's not my job to teach you the basics of Polish history. If it's too much of a task for you, sure let me help
    Nor is it my task to teach you very basic reading comprehension skills. Private students pay me good money to do that... I'll make an exception to this for reasons of entertainment value:

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...nment-in-exile
    THIS is legitimate Polish government. As you can see it existed in exile until the end of communism that is 1990
    As I had said, you don't have very good basic reading comprehension skills.

    From your very own link:

    After the war, as the Polish territory came under the control of the People's Republic of Poland, a Soviet satellite state, the government-in-exile remained in existence, though largely unrecognized and without effective power. Only after the end of Communist rule in Poland did the government-in-exile formally pass on its responsibilities to the new government of the Third Polish Republic in December 1990.
    Key words here are "largely unrecognised" and "without effective power". If that was not enough to actually attune you to reality, then of course it follows in more detail:

    Meanwhile, the Polish government in exile had maintained its existence, but France on 29 June 1945,[6] then the United States and United Kingdom on 5 July 1945[6][33] withdrew their recognition. The Polish Armed Forces in exile were disbanded in 1945, and most of their members, unable to safely return to Communist Poland, settled in other countries. The London Poles had to vacate the Polish embassy on Portland Place and were left only with the president's private residence at 43 Eaton Place. The government in exile became largely symbolic of continued resistance to foreign occupation of Poland, while retaining some important archives from prewar Poland. The Republic of Ireland, Francoist Spain and the Vatican CityDomenico Tardinipre-war government in 1959.
    So the main players had already ditched recognition of the Polish government in exile by 1945 and after that only a couple of 2nd string countries such as Spain and Ireland along with the Vatican. Even the Catholic Vatican finally completely ditched the Polish government in exile by 1979.

    Oh, you might want to read this:

    https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup12...overnment%20in %20exile.pdf

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Told you already. It needs to be counted by the specialists. And not in ignorant simplificated way as you did. We need to count 93 billion euro received from EU, and subtract the value of eastern German land we received, etc etc
    Even if my calculations of how much in reparations are out by 2 or three trillion dollars, it doesn't change the fact that if things went to their logical conclusion that Poland would now be owing an order of magnitude of money more to Germany than the 600-800 billion Euros that Germany owes Poland.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Stop bullshiting me about international law, this is not even a matter of international law. Legitimace has two aspects, external and internal. While internationally "recognized" Polish communist government had absolute 0 legitimacy in Polish territories, among Polish citizens. 0.
    It's internationally recognised governments who can execute international treaties.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Looks like you didn't. Or you're trying to twist things on purpose, which knowing your posts might also be the case
    More rantive verbal masturbation because you are unable to refute what I've said with evidence.

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Irrelevant
    Another verbal masturbatory spurt to try avoiding substantiating a counter-opinion...

    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
    Oh sure, plase present any verifiable evidence for any of these claims
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/Th...ity-You/132123

    Oh, just wondering where your evidence for your points is when you are demanding evidence from me and others... You need to come up with better evidence than links you either have not read or have reading comprehension issues with..

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
    Stating that someone is not concerned with the content doesn't really have anythign to do with the topic, it rather looks like a grievance about aussie.
    Exclusively off-topic posts from this poster can probably be summarised in one word - "butthurt". Perhaps the poster in question might wish to do other forum readers the courtesy of confining the butthurt comments to the thread from which the butthurt emulates...

    I'm awaiting this poster's substantive comments regarding "outstanding" war reparations by Germany to Greece, as evident in the thread title, and also to Poland as per the OP

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post

    No problem Laura. Be careful with Sancta_Lux, he's crybaby and gets triggered by slightest things
    Yep, so hard not to be triggered with a jordan_rudess around, lel. Try something better, please...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
    I find the hypocrisy of your response amusing. My post was in direct response to this:
    "I've read a fair bit of Polish history - and Poland were also acting like total arseholes at times."

    "Looks like you didn't. Or you're trying to twist things on purpose, which knowing your posts might also be the case"

    Your post was. . .??? Not only did it "start off topic. . " it never made it to any substantive purpose. And now we're way out in left field so I hope the OP will accept my apology for feeling the need to respond and leave it at that.
    What is the hypocrisy in my answer to you? I'm not complaining about being concerned with the content yet starting my response by a complete offtopic with my grievance against another user
    Else I said you started your reply with an off topic, not that there was no off topic on this thread already or that off topic is fundamentally bad

    Leave a comment:


  • jordan_rudess
    replied
    Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
    I find the hypocrisy of your response amusing. My post was in direct response to this:
    "I've read a fair bit of Polish history - and Poland were also acting like total arseholes at times."

    "Looks like you didn't. Or you're trying to twist things on purpose, which knowing your posts might also be the case"

    Your post was. . .??? Not only did it "start off topic. . " it never made it to any substantive purpose. And now we're way out in left field so I hope the OP will accept my apology for feeling the need to respond and leave it at that.
    No problem Laura. Be careful with Sancta_Lux, he's crybaby and gets triggered by slightest things

    Leave a comment:


  • Laura005
    replied
    I find the hypocrisy of your response amusing. My post was in direct response to this:
    "I've read a fair bit of Polish history - and Poland were also acting like total arseholes at times."

    "Looks like you didn't. Or you're trying to twist things on purpose, which knowing your posts might also be the case"

    Your post was. . .??? Not only did it "start off topic. . " it never made it to any substantive purpose. And now we're way out in left field so I hope the OP will accept my apology for feeling the need to respond and leave it at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by Laura005 View Post
    How would that be off topic exactly? I was responding to a point made directly in the previous post. Guess I needed to use the "quote" function. . . If anything, yours would qualify
    Stating that someone is not concerned with the content doesn't really have anythign to do with the topic, it rather looks like a grievance about aussie.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X