Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Was Prince Charles Correct In Referring To Putin's Behaviour As Similar To Hitler's?
46 Answers
Putin has only got one ball,
the other is on the Kremlin wall
Stalin has something sim'lar,
But poor old Turchynov has no balls at all.
Was Charles right to have made the comment in that though it was supposedly a private remark, it was in a public place and picked up by the Press, aka the Daily Wail?
the other is on the Kremlin wall
Stalin has something sim'lar,
But poor old Turchynov has no balls at all.
Was Charles right to have made the comment in that though it was supposedly a private remark, it was in a public place and picked up by the Press, aka the Daily Wail?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit - i know he did not say it in particular to the Birmingham Library - however his views on some architecture has been generally placed under that general heading
http://
http://
he did say something vaguely similar about Birmingham's library:-
In the 1988 BBC documentary "A Vision of Britain", the Prince said the 1974 brutalist library designed by John Madin looked like "a place where books are incinerated, not kept". He also said he felt 'terribly demoralised' when he examined plans for the convention centre. "Choosing my words to be as inoffensive as possible, I said I thought it was an unmitigated disaster."
In the 1988 BBC documentary "A Vision of Britain", the Prince said the 1974 brutalist library designed by John Madin looked like "a place where books are incinerated, not kept". He also said he felt 'terribly demoralised' when he examined plans for the convention centre. "Choosing my words to be as inoffensive as possible, I said I thought it was an unmitigated disaster."
The big difference between Putin and Hitler is that Hitler was moved by a warped ideology. Putin is moved largely by money and the fear of losing power.
The big mistake some make in assessing the Russian leader is in thinking that he is moved by a desire to protect his people or even his people abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth (leaving aside the fact that there are, outside Crimea, few actual Russians in Ukraine to "protect")
Crimea was a landgrab very like Hitler's Austrian Anschluss. The rest is just bullyboy tactics and bluff, I think we can see now.
So Charles is not quite right, but there's no doubt this private remark will cause no end of fuss for a day or two. If the Prince does meet Putin at the D-Day commemoration he should really be asking "What on earth do you think you are doing here?".
But by then he'll probably have been warned to keep quiet.
The big mistake some make in assessing the Russian leader is in thinking that he is moved by a desire to protect his people or even his people abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth (leaving aside the fact that there are, outside Crimea, few actual Russians in Ukraine to "protect")
Crimea was a landgrab very like Hitler's Austrian Anschluss. The rest is just bullyboy tactics and bluff, I think we can see now.
So Charles is not quite right, but there's no doubt this private remark will cause no end of fuss for a day or two. If the Prince does meet Putin at the D-Day commemoration he should really be asking "What on earth do you think you are doing here?".
But by then he'll probably have been warned to keep quiet.
no i don't think he was right, as others have pointed out , Hitlers ideologies were to exterminate as many Jews, and others as possible, hatred was his driving force, Putin is a hard liner, in a long line of hard liners, but i do think he should not be in the same category, however in Ukraine's case i think that Ickeria has explained it well on other threads.
So why did he garb the Crimea?
Let me answer that one, not for a few poxy Russians or discontented Ukrainians who don't know when and where their bread is buttered on the right side. No, he seized it for Sebsastopol, its naval base and hence entrance to the Black Sea and the Med/Red Sea and, ultimately, the mid Atlantic too.
Let me answer that one, not for a few poxy Russians or discontented Ukrainians who don't know when and where their bread is buttered on the right side. No, he seized it for Sebsastopol, its naval base and hence entrance to the Black Sea and the Med/Red Sea and, ultimately, the mid Atlantic too.
ichkeria; //Crimea was a landgrab very like Hitler's Austrian Anschluss.// Sorry no. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany and Austria were forbidden to be unified. Hitler wanted the German speaking peoples to be unified. Under the Austro-Hungarian Empire Austria had been a sovereign state.
The Crimea was, since Catherine the Great, part of the Russian Empire and it's vital link to the Black Sea. Nikita Khrushchev, whose mother was from the Crimea, handed it to the Ukraine without any legal right to do so, but at the time it mattered little as the Ukraine was an integral part of the USSR.
Therefore Hitler's Anschluss (connection) really WAS a land-grab, and Putin was simply taking back what was really Russian territory anyway.
The Crimea was, since Catherine the Great, part of the Russian Empire and it's vital link to the Black Sea. Nikita Khrushchev, whose mother was from the Crimea, handed it to the Ukraine without any legal right to do so, but at the time it mattered little as the Ukraine was an integral part of the USSR.
Therefore Hitler's Anschluss (connection) really WAS a land-grab, and Putin was simply taking back what was really Russian territory anyway.
That's a nice way of putting it, and it might well be the case that in the long-term it's better to have the Crimea as part of Russia. But the manner in which he grabbed it was pretty appalling, really. Perhaps a better parallel with Nazi Germany might be the annexing of the Sudetenland than the Anschluss.
Yes, that is a better analogy jim. The Sudetenland was part of Germany until 1806 and of the German Confederation between 1815 and 1866. After the First World War the Sudetenland became part of Czechoslovakia and Hitler believed he had the right to reclaim it, though many, even among his own Generals, did not agree.
Crimea was actually mainly Tatar until Stalin deported them 70 years ago.
They'd only just started to coming back and many of them have since been intimidated into leaving.
It was - and still is - a perfectly legal part of Ukraine (And Russia still had its link to the Black Sea anyway through leasing part of Sevastopol port). The Russians are now proceeding to turn it into even more of a pigsty than it was already. But then, natural behaviour and all that :-)
Nationalist fervour in Russia whipped up by Putin is actually not totally unlike that seen in Germany under Hitler.
They'd only just started to coming back and many of them have since been intimidated into leaving.
It was - and still is - a perfectly legal part of Ukraine (And Russia still had its link to the Black Sea anyway through leasing part of Sevastopol port). The Russians are now proceeding to turn it into even more of a pigsty than it was already. But then, natural behaviour and all that :-)
Nationalist fervour in Russia whipped up by Putin is actually not totally unlike that seen in Germany under Hitler.
ichkeria; //[Crimea] was - and still is - a perfectly legal part of Ukraine//
Well it ain't now, and it's questionable whether it ever was; 'Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was announced in the Soviet press in late February 1954, eight days after the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution authorizing the move on 19 February. The text of the resolution and some anodyne excerpts from the proceedings of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet meeting on 19 February were published along with the very brief announcement. Nothing else about the transfer was disclosed at the time, and no further information was made available during the remainder of the Soviet era.'
Well it ain't now, and it's questionable whether it ever was; 'Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was announced in the Soviet press in late February 1954, eight days after the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution authorizing the move on 19 February. The text of the resolution and some anodyne excerpts from the proceedings of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet meeting on 19 February were published along with the very brief announcement. Nothing else about the transfer was disclosed at the time, and no further information was made available during the remainder of the Soviet era.'
Worrying about the legality of otherwise of the actions 60-odd years ago of the ruler of a now-defunct state is pretty pointless.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine was supposed to be guaranteed by the existing states of Russia, the US and the UK at the Budapest Agreement. You simply can't carve up bits of another country to suit yourself.
Crimea is now in a no-man's land, unrecognised as part of russia by the civilised world and yet unable to be governed as part of Ukraine as it should be.
Whether the actions of Putin match the exact historical scenario of Austria, Czechoslovakia etc is also slightly irrelevant. I think we all know where Prince C is coming from. Give this a few days and it'll blow over.
The real disgrace is that Putin's invitation to Normandy has not been revoked, as it should have been.
The territorial integrity of Ukraine was supposed to be guaranteed by the existing states of Russia, the US and the UK at the Budapest Agreement. You simply can't carve up bits of another country to suit yourself.
Crimea is now in a no-man's land, unrecognised as part of russia by the civilised world and yet unable to be governed as part of Ukraine as it should be.
Whether the actions of Putin match the exact historical scenario of Austria, Czechoslovakia etc is also slightly irrelevant. I think we all know where Prince C is coming from. Give this a few days and it'll blow over.
The real disgrace is that Putin's invitation to Normandy has not been revoked, as it should have been.
".....he seized it for Sebsastopol, its naval base and hence entrance to the Black Sea and the Med/Red Sea and, ultimately, the mid Atlantic too....." Exactly & why those 'russian' Crimeans want to hold onto their jobs.
Has Charlie forgotten UK outposts, one being the very soil he expounds foul rhetoric from.
Has Charlie forgotten UK outposts, one being the very soil he expounds foul rhetoric from.
There are some parallels in that they're both suffering from a massive case of sour grapes about the outcome of a war ( In Hitler's case WW1 and Versailles, and in Putin's the cold war ) and trying to reclaim territory they see as rightfully theirs or their country's.
Putin's not simply a warmongering nutcase though. I don't think he's got any intention of rolling the tanks westward until he reaches the Atlantic, but you never know.
It doesn't bother me that Charles has chipped in. He's voicing a perception that many people have, so if it's erroneous, the Russians probably need to explain their actions better.
Putin's not simply a warmongering nutcase though. I don't think he's got any intention of rolling the tanks westward until he reaches the Atlantic, but you never know.
It doesn't bother me that Charles has chipped in. He's voicing a perception that many people have, so if it's erroneous, the Russians probably need to explain their actions better.
"Exactly & why those 'russian' Crimeans want to hold onto their jobs."
(I suspect unwittingly) you've hit on a relevant point. The people looking to hold onto their jobs in Crimea are the organised criminals (many of them in the Crimean Parliament). The Maidan revolution spelled seriously bad news for corrupt politicans and businessmen, which is one reason for a lot of the unrest since.
(I suspect unwittingly) you've hit on a relevant point. The people looking to hold onto their jobs in Crimea are the organised criminals (many of them in the Crimean Parliament). The Maidan revolution spelled seriously bad news for corrupt politicans and businessmen, which is one reason for a lot of the unrest since.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV59 mins ago
ChatterBank83 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.