Lietmotiv wrote:The discussion itself started because someone stated that Western Ukraine should go with Poland.
Um, actually no. Here's the statement in question, with the part you apparently missed bolded for clarity:
Yasna wrote:What do you guys think should be done with the western part of Ukraine that Stalin chopped off of Poland and gave to Ukraine?
First of all, this isn't a statement, it's a question. Second, the territory in question is a tiny fraction of the total territory of Western Ukraine.
Here are the responses:
TheStrayCat wrote:I'd appreciate more investments from the new government into the western regions as touristic places. The richest cultural heritage left by a multitude of nations inhabiting those areas in different times makes them potentially attractive for both Ukrainians and foreign visitors.
Johanna wrote:That's for Poland and Ukraine to decide[/.]
xivrox wrote:If you mean the ownership of it, then the answer is obviously: nothing. There are simply not enough Polish people living there to change anything, even if the Polish government was strong and independent enough and had enough political will.
Saim wrote:The same thing that should be done with Lower Silesia or eastern Prussia, i.e. nothing (based on the will of the local inhabitants, of course).
So it appears that the "someone [who] stated that Western Ukraine should go with Poland" is an invention of your mind. None of the respondents advocated a change in boundaries; at most, they invoked the wishes of the local inhabitants and/or the two countries with a claim to the territory.
Discussions work better when you (a) read and respond to what's actually been said rather than what you imagine was said and (b) leave out incendiary rhetoric, such as comparisons to Hitler.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons