Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?
    Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 13:49
In 1938 Stalin had been 'rebuffed' by the western powers (France and Britain) reaching an agreement with Hitler over the Sudetenland (Munich) which excluded the Soviets.  In March 1939 Hitler blatantly violated that agreement with his occupation of Moravia and Bohemia, after 'stage managing' the separation of Slovakia.  British policy then changed from 'appeasement' to 'deterrence', and 'guarantees' were offered to small nations apparently threatened by German aggression.  The obvious 'next target' of Hitler was Poland.  As it became obvious to Hitler that he could not manage to take Poland without having to fight France and Britain, he sought out an 'alliance' with the Soviet Union.  Germany needed not only a secure eastern front (after the conquest of Poland) so as to be able to fight a one-front war against France and Britain, he also needed the raw materials that would be cut off due to the blockade.
 
Stalin was receptive to the German 'feelers', in the wake of the rebuff from the western powers.  Furthermore, Germany was 'desparate' under the circumstances and Stalin was able to 'drive a hard bargain'.  Under the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Germany was to get Lithuania and western Poland.  The Soviet Union was to get eastern Poland, Estonia and Latvia as well as a 'free hand' in Rumania and Finland.  The fate of 'central Poland' was unspecified in the original 'deal'.  Once Poland was defeated and occupied by the Nazi's and Soviets, the deal was altered slightly, whereby Germany gave up Lithuania to the Soviets and kept central Poland for themselves - Poland was to 'disappear' from the map completely.  Further, the Soviets supplied Germany with critical raw materials and received various 'payment' in return, including industrial machinery.  As Germany shifted forces west, Stalin 'forced' the Baltic States to accept Soviet 'military bases' on their territory (amounted to occupation) and made demands of Finland.  Of course Finland did not accept the demands entirely (did not reject them completely either) and Stalin fought the Winter War against Finland to impose his demands. 
 
Then, to everyone's shock and surprize, France collapsed in a few weeks in the spring of 1940.  Stalin hurriedly annexed the Baltic States to the Soviet Union and demanded Bessarabia and Bukovina from Rumania.  It appears that Stalin expected the fighting in France to take much longer and to weaken Germany much more.  Even after the fall of France, he apparently hoped / expected the Germans to be tied up fighting Britain, possibly to invade Britain.  After German failure in the Battle of Britain, Germany started shifting major forces east, and moved into the Balkans (an area they had expressed 'disinterest in' according to their alliance with the Soviets).  Stalin started to feel 'threatened' and started his own version of 'appeasement', ensuring Soviet deliveries of raw materials were on time even as German payments fell behind.  Of course we know Nazi Germany broke their alliance with the Soviet Union and attacked in June 1941.  The Red Army was still recovering from the earlier purges, was in the middle of a major re-org and was receiving new more modern equipment (e.g. T-34 tanks).  It seems that Stalin was hoping / expecting to have at least one more year to complete these changes before having to fight.  As it was, Soviet forces were ill-prepared for the German attack and reacted rather badly.  In spite of their large numerical advantage, the Red Army suffered one of the most disasterous defeats in military history in the initial stages of Barbarossa.
 
So, Stalin gained some time and 'forced' the Germans to fight the west first by his deal with Hitler.  He also gained some critical industrial machinery from Germany.  He also gained considerable territory at little cost (Eastern Poland, Baltic States and Bessarabia / Bukovina).  Of course the Finnish territory was gained at considerable cost.  In spite of that, the Red Army was still ill-prepared when the German attack came, and suffered a crushing defeat.  So was Stalin's alliance with Hitler a 'good idea'?  What were the other options?  Would neutrality have been better?  A 'hostile' neutrality (e.g. join the 'blockade' of Germany but don't fight) or would it have been better to have 'joined' the fight against the Nazi's early?


Edited by deadkenny - 04-Jul-2008 at 13:56
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 15:57

Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?



At least you were kind enough to start this thread in the "Alternative History" section.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:06
Originally posted by Bankotsu


At least you were kind enough to start this thread in the "Alternative History" section.
 
No other comment from you?  I'm disappointed.  It was convenient enough to start it here, as I was already in this folder to comment on the 'alternate reality' thread on British policy.  If the mods believe it belongs elsewhere, they can move it.  Stalin's alliance with Hitler isn't in dispute (is it?).  The question at the end is really an assessment of possible alternatives.  Was Stalin's alliance with Hitler at that point really the best alternative?  Was it an error that was only obvious in hindsight (e.g. no one expected the collapse of France to come so quickly, and at so little 'cost' to the Germans)?  Do you really have nothing more to contribute? 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:26
depending on which POV you looked at.
 
Good.
Stalin and Hitler, avoided a war which nither wanted and got to put pesky Poland in its place, something both had wanted (or their countrys) since 1921.
 
Bad
The W Allies, who had given a security guarentee to Poland, and found themselve badly outmanoevered. If they had know about the pact I suspect they would have foudn some excuse.
 
Poland
Need I say anything?
 
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:38
Originally posted by Sparten

depending on which POV you looked at.
 
Bad
The W Allies, who had given a security guarentee to Poland, and found themselve badly outmanoevered. If they had know about the pact I suspect they would have foudn some excuse.


Here is one source on that:

...On August 17 Britain's Washington ambassador got word from US intelligence sources that the signing of a Soviet-German Non-aggression Treaty was imminent. This was one of the possibilities most feared by Daladier and Chamberlain. It meant the collapse, at least temporarily, of their planned war between the USSR and Germany. This did not mean, as Churchill knew, that they would then be in the position of having to wage war on Hitler unaided. The British had already sent a special emissary, Baron William de Ropp, to Berlin a few days before. One of his tasks, during his discussions with Alfred Rosenberg, head of the Nazi Party's foreign policy department, was to spell out the British stand in the event of a German attack on Poland.

...The British now resorted to tactics disgraceful even by their own standards. So deep is the shame which still attaches to British actions at this time that official records have been doctored to conceal the truth. Regrettably, Western historians have tended to connive in the cover up.

When Britain's Washington ambassador got word of Ribbentrop's impending visit to Moscow he at once sent the news to the Foreign Office. According to the official version of events, the telegram did not arrive until 22 August, a delay of four days. During this time the British had one last chance to save the peace and fend off the impending catastrophe. At this final and crucial moment their actions would be conclusively revealing about their real intentions.

Five days later when the Soviet-German Treaty became a fact the Western media raised an incredible storm of synthetic anger, claiming that both Britain and France had allegedly sought an alliance with the USSR but that the latter had 'double-crossed' them. This myth, assiduously fostered by western historians, still remains ingrained in popular consciousness.

It is a myth which depends crucially on the circumstantial fact of the delayed diplomatic telegram. For had the telegram arrived on 18 August the British government would have had ample time to act to forestall the collapse of the Moscow military talks. A drastic step by the British government, such as a telegram to Moscow saying that Lord Halifax or the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Ironside, were ready to come to Moscow with plenipotentiary powers to sign the treaty, could have changed the course of events drastically and within hours. Nothing stood in the way, even at this eleventh hour, of a collective security arrangement capable of ensuring peace, other than the warmongering intransigence of the British themselves.

The British, of course, did not send Halifax to retrieve the stalled talks. A treaty with the Russians was no part of the schemes of the appeasers. What they actually did was to send a British intelligence officer, Sydney Cotton, on a secret mission to Germany. He was to try to persuade Hermann Goering to return with him to London to meet and negotiate face to face with Neville Chamberlain. In a last twist of perfidy, an act of actual desperation, Chamberlain wanted to buy off Hitler's proposed pact with the Soviet Union by making the Germans a still better offer.

Goering agreed to fly in secretly on 23 August. Hitler however was still only concerned to beat the British at their own game of setting potential enemies at each other's throats. Goering didn't turn up; Hitler no longer had anything to fear from the British and was now only concerned to ensure Soviet non-intervention in the forthcoming attack on Poland.

Only in 1971 did incontrovertible evidence appear proving that Halifax received on 18 August the Washington ambassador's telegram warning of the impending conclusion of a German-Soviet Non-aggression Treaty- that is, the day after it was sent.

This revelation made it finally impossible to suggest, as several generations of historians and publicists have tried to, that it was the Soviet Union which ditched the Moscow talks and made war inevitable. But in reality the circumstantial evidence of British duplicity was undeniable from the start.

The collapse of the Moscow talks meant that the last obstacle to Hitler's next move in the

grand design for European and world domination had been removed. On September 1st German units crossed the Polish border. Chamberlain and Daladier made last desperate efforts to involve Mussolini in some form of 'mediation' before public opinion forced the two governments to declare war on Germany on 3 September...

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm




Edited by Bankotsu - 04-Jul-2008 at 16:38
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:48
Stalin's alliance with Hitler isn't in dispute (is it?).


It's an non-aggression pact, not alliance.

There was also a German-Danish non-aggression pact.

Was that an alliance?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/





Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651
  Quote Richard XIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:51
And secret annexes? For Poland and Romania was a "brilliant" idea.Big%20smile
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:56
And secret annexes? For Poland and Romania was a "brilliant" idea.


???
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:57
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Stalin's alliance with Hitler isn't in dispute (is it?).


It's an non-aggression pact, not alliance.

There was also a German-Danish non-aggression pact.

Was that an alliance?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/

 
Lol.  Nice try.  Denmark and Germany didn't mutually agree to divide up Scandinavia between them and then both attack Sweden now did they?  The Stalin-Hitler alliance was far more than just a 'non-aggression' pact.  They both attacked and occupied mutually agreed upon portions of Poland.  They split up the Baltic States, although Lithuania was later 'reallocated' to the Soviets.  Explicit mention was made of the Soviets occupying Bessarabia.  Nice try though.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:01
Originally posted by Sparten

...The W Allies, who had given a security guarentee to Poland, and found themselve badly outmanoevered. If they had know about the pact I suspect they would have foudn some excuse....
  
 
The Allies knew about the 'public' portion of the Nazi-Soviet pact before they declared war on Germany, but they went ahead anyway.  Further, they continued the war even after the 'secret' components of the deal started to become evident (Soviet attack on Poland and occupation of the eastern portions, 'occupation' of the Baltic States, ultimatum and attack on Finland....).
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:01

German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
Moscow, August 23, 1939

From: Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941, Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Office (Washington D.C., 1948) p. 78


The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I.

Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II.

Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III.

The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV.

Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V.

Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI.

The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII.

The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The next section was not published at the time the above was announced.]

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I.

In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II.

In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III.

With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV.

This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/molrib.htm

The above is clearly not a pact aimed at alliance.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:05
Compare above pact with below pact:


THE ITALO-GERMAN ALLIANCE, MAY 22, 1939

ARTICLE I.

The Contracting Parties will remain in permanent contact with each other, in order to come to an understanding of all common interests or the European situation as a whole.

ARTICLE II.

In the event that the common interests of the Contracting Parties be jeopardized through international happenings of any kind, they will immediately enter into consultation regarding the necessary measures to preserve these interests. Should the security or other vital interests of one of the Contracting Parties be threatened from outside, the other Contracting Party will afford the threatened Party its full political and diplomatic support in order to remove this threat.

ARTICLE III.

If it should happen, against the wishes and hopes of the Contracting Parties, that one of them becomes involved in military complications with another tower or other Powers, the other Contracting Party will immediately step to its side as an ally and will support it with all its military might on land, at sea, and in the air.

ARTICLE IV.

In order to ensure, in any given case, the rapid implementation of the alliance obligations of Article III, the Governments of the two Contracting Parties will further intensify their cooperation in the military sphere and the sphere of war economy. Similarly the two Governments will keep each other regularly informed of other measures necessary for the practical implementation of this pact. The two Governments will create standing commissions, under the direction of the Foreign Ministers, for the purposes indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2.

ARTICLE V.

The Contracting Parties already at this point bind themselves, in the event of a jointly waged war, to conclude any armistice or peace only in full agreement with each other.

ARTICLE VI.

The two Contracting Parties are aware of the importance of their joint relations to the Powers which are friendly to them. They are determined to maintain these relations in future and to promote the adequate development of the common interests which bind them to these Powers.

ARTICLE VII.

This pact comes into force immediately upon its signing. The two Contracting Parties are agreed upon fixing the first period of its validity at ten years. In good time before the elapse of this period they will come to an agreement regarding the extension of the validity of the pact.

SECRET SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOL

On signing the friendship and alliance pact, agreement has been established by both parties on the following points: 1. The two Foreign Ministers will as quickly as possible come to an agreement on the organization, the seat, and the methods of work on the pact of the commissions on military questions and questions of war economy as stipulated in Article IV of the pact. 2. For the execution of Article IV, par. 2, the two Foreign Ministers will as quickly as possible arrange the necessary measures, guaranteeing a constant cooperation, conforming to the spirit and aims of the pact, in matters of the press, the news service and the propaganda. For this purpose in particular, each of the two Foreign Ministers will assign to the embassy of his country in the respective capital one or several especially well-experienced specialists, for constant discussion in direct close cooperation with the resp. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of the suitable steps to be taken in matters of the press, the news service and the propaganda for the promotion of the policy of the Axis, and as a countermeasure against the policy of the enemy powers.

Berlin 22 May 1939 in the XVII year of the Fascist Era.

http://astro.temple.edu/~rimmerma/Italo_German_alliance_1939.htm


Edited by Bankotsu - 04-Jul-2008 at 17:06
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:07
Why does anyone give a shit what Nazi policy makers put in writing?  None of it ever meant a thing.
 
 
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:10
But that is not the method of historical study.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:28
Note that Britain was trying to open talks to sign an Anglo-German non-aggression pact in July 1939.

British history texts usually cover this point up in their propagandist texts.


...As soon as this had died down, secret efforts were made through R.S. Hudson, secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, to negotiate with Helmuth Wohlthat, Reich Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, who was in London to negotiate an international whaling agreement.

Although Wholthat had no powers, he listened to Hudson and later to Sir Horace Wilson, but refused to discuss the matter with Chamberlain.  Wilson offered: 

(1) a non-aggression pact with Germany; 
(2) a delimitation of spheres among the Great Powers;
(3) colonial concessions in Africa along the lines previously mentioned;
(4) an economic agreement.


These conversations, reported to Berlin by Ambassador Dirksen in a dispatch of 21 July 1939, would have involved giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe and bringing her into collision with Russia. 

One sentence of Dirksen’s says:  “Sir Horace Wilson definitely told Herr Wohlthat that the conclusion of a non-aggression pact would enable Britian to rid herself of her commitments vis-a-vis Poland.” ...



http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 18:53
Bankotsu, please do not 'thread crap'.  This thread is to discuss the merits of and alternatives to the historic Nazi-Soviet alliance, reached in 1939 and broken by the Nazi's in 1941 when they attacked the Soviet Union.  You know very well that what you've posted here belongs in your other thread.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 18:58
Originally posted by Bankotsu

The above is clearly not a pact aimed at alliance.
 
It most certainly was.
 
"An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."
 
 
You can play semantics all you want, but the Nazi-Soviet 'pact' was certainly 'an agreement between two parties (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests (such as the destruction and partitioning of Poland, the Baltic States etc.)'.  The English word 'alliance' is just exactly meant to express that concept.  It fits the agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union perfectly.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 19:15
It Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was definetely not an alliance.  No need to make up history here.
 
Germany was in alliance with the other powers of the Axis i.e. Italy and Japan.
 
If Soviet-German pact is an alliance, what are German-Italian relations? Super-Mega Alliance? Confused
 
Apparently, from the point of view of the USSR and Germany it was a very good idea.
Though for Poland and the Baltic states it turned to be a tragedy...
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651
  Quote Richard XIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 19:22
Don't forget Romania, we are still separated and IMHO we never unite. 
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 19:27

Yes sure. Besides it was a tragedy for Romanian people.

Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.