A digression: in effect of the secret protocol being signed, then-USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany). Wikipedia articles describing this "event" are typically named "Soviet invasion of Poland" or "Soviet occupation of East Poland", or something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.
It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
That's something both Polish and international historians condemn, and there's no serious justification of this act, not in maintream Polish history books, nor on Wikipedia (described as "annexation" in .pl wiki). PS: Poland was not a signatory to the Munich agreements.
But Molotov-Rippentrop pact is a direct consequence of the Munich agreement that clearly signalled that the West doesn't intend to fight Nazis and the USSR would be alone.
The same signal was reinforced by the failure of the USSR to form an anti-Hitler alliance with France and the GB.
The events that followed prove the lack of will to fight Hitler on part of the West - the Great Britain declared war on the Germany after it invaded Poland, but this war is called the Phony War for a reason - the GB didn't actually do anything.
So when you reduce the history to "the USSR signed the pact with Hitler and they together started WW2" it is at the very least uninformed.
No honor among thieves. Poland was marked to be taken off the history books because her neighbors were powerful. Poland would have the same back then, if it was in their position. History of the world. The last few decades are very unique as we have peace, minus a few things here and there.
Please don't mindlessly repeat this Cold War propaganda bit.
There is a direct cause and effect relationship between the Munich agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Talking about the latter starting the WW2 without mentioning the former is at the very least misleading.
Please, don't mindlessly repeat this Russian propaganda.
Rapallo happened in 1922. And there is a direct cause and effect relationship between it and German militarization.
The war nearly started in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. Hitler was already determined upon war at that point, so he is right that it’s a split toe more complex than that. You have to look at the preceding years, appeasement and Munich.
Worth noting that the Allies who justified the protection of Poland to declare war on Germany, avoided declaring war on Soviet Russia which invaded Poland on the Eastern side (about 2 weeks after).
From another POV: those two week later Poland as a state didn't exist, the former Polish government was in exile, and USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war.
2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground. The border was supposed to be Curzon line (exactly that line, that USSR took back in 1939), but the Poles were gunning for more, hence the 1919-1921 war.
If you consider Polish ground whatever was high mark of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, then good luck with that. It was empire building in the making, they overstretched and didn't make it. It is no Polish ground exactly in the same sense, that Balkan is not Turkish either.
> 2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground
Versailes declaration (FR, UK, IT), with support of Polish statehood - June 1918 /
End of WW1 - November, 1918 /
2nd Polish Republic established - November, 1918 /
Start of Polish-Sovet war - February, 1919
Polish statehood is not the same as the polish territory at a convenient point of time.
After Versailles, the Poland was established on the territory of Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire and Russian empire. However, the Russian empire part was supposed to be up to the Curzon line.
Instead, the Poles went opportunistic far behind it. What they gained in the war (because Soviets were weak at the time), they lost in the war 20 years later (table has turned, they were weak at the time).
Not that they didn't similar things elsewhere; they had to annex parts of Czechoslovakia too (1919-1920).
Sorry, I don't have sympathy when a conqueror loses whatever they conquered.
- The territorial gains of Poland in 1919-1920 materialized, because it won a war started by the Soviet Union
- Curzon line was proposed/described only in 1920
- Those lands (that you described as conquered and re-conquered) weren't Russian etnically, more like Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian
- (edit) The secret pact (Germany-USSR) didn't say Soviet union will recover the territorial gains from 1920-1921, but that it will occupy Eastern Poland (east of Vistula River), making it effectively partition of Poland, so no Curzon line here too.
PS: Please reply if you'd like, and EOT for me. This whole centithread started because I wanted to display that the current Russian historiography is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
> Piłsudski also said:
Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and South-east, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War
I can't see Poland in good light here - same imperial attitude, same old flows in ethnic politics. Same as Russia.
As for the pact
> The terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers which did not go along Curzon Line but reached far beyond it and awarded the Soviet Union with territories of Lublin and near Warsaw.
PS: I've replied only because I wanted to display that the comment is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
I don't think I've ever made a point that PL (and earlier PL-LI commonwealth) had a stellar record of treatment of minority nationalities in its borders. Could you clarify with which point I'd made you argue?
Didn't "Weak" Poland survive longer fighting a two-front war than France did in its single-front war? And for the remainder of the war, escaped Poles fought for Britain and other allies.
> USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war
Essentially, Poland was occupying these territories between 1921 and 1939. Also, Poland had a dictatorship (quite typical in Europe at that time) and they were highly aggressive with respect to their neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–19), Polish-Lithuanian War (1920, culminating in Żeligowski's Mutiny), Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (beginning in 1918).
It had authoritarianism (with many democratic elements in place) since 1926 (way way more liberal than that of Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany). Before that it was fully democratic (though, chaotic).
As for the conflicts you'd decribed, some of them were conflicts without clear aggressor (e.g. Polish-Czechoslovak conflicts of 1918) typical of those times, some were misdeeds of Polish state (annexation of Vilnus and Czechoslovakian Zaolzie in 1938).
This is an absolutely non valid POV. The Polish government still existed back on the 17th of September when the USSR invaded, and Russia and Poland has signed a treaty of non-aggression that was renewed for 10 years in 1934 and was still claimed to be valid by both parties back in 1938.
There's no way you can deny that the USSR invaded a state of Poland that still existed and was still fighting against aggressors right when Russia troops passed the frontier.
Note that your comment is actually pure propaganda from Staline's himself (this is exactly what the USSR claimed when they invaded Poland, and they presented themselves as liberators and protectors instead of invaders). Of course, you should know better than to trust the communist propaganda.
British and French had treaties with Poland, the US didn't enter the war until 41.
Roosevelt and Churchill seemed to believe Stalin's promises about Poland at Yalta. Only later did they seem to realise Stalin's words were empty. Churchill was hugely criticised in parliament right after for the poor treatment of Poland, including by his own party. There was even a vote of confidence in the government.
Of course post-war Europe ended up looking very suspiciously like the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines...
Roosevelt and Churchill practically gave away the whole of Eastern and Central Europe to Stalin. That's why the whole Yalta affair is quite unpopular amongst Eastern and Central Europeans. Hopefully history won't repeat itself now that we're all part of Nato.
Trump is tearing down NATO right now and the US doesn't even need it anymore since it's focusing on China. I'm glad that Romania is on the Western side this time, maybe we get to be spared from foreign imposed governments for once.
If you ignore the bullying, Trump is rather pragmatic. He's not tearing down NATO but pushing other NATO countries to take responsibility, fund their militaries and maybe buy US weapons in the process. Poland and Romania are quite receptive, Germany not so much because they aren't directly threatened.
The focus on China and Iran is also pragmatic. China has gotten more aggressive lately and Iran is likely getting punished.
"USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany)."
German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit.
The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis.
>Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу
Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.
Listen, after decades of listening to the American Civil War being refought, this discussion is fascinating and entertaining. But can we keep it somewhat civil?
Your comment states this as if russian version has nothing to do with 'invasion", if not a lie, than clearly an attempt to make people think that russian version is somehow different in this regard, which is a lie. As the 'march' part is only applicable to soviet historiography as stated on the wiki page and obviously should not be changed as this is a historical fact.
The sandboxed library is indeed exec'd (it's a separate binary), so the only "secrets" that leak into it, are those which are already there - compiled into the binary.
As for fork/exec: the idea is to preserve the execution context as long as possible - if data leaks between sequences of library API calls are not a problem (e.g. because we just convert some data for internal use), then forking/execve is not necessary. The idea behind 'transactions' (as per Sandboxed API nomenclature) is just that.
If potential data leaks between API calls might be a problem, then a fresh instance is spawned via fork (no execve is needed here though).
It'd most likely lead to symbol conflicts, if you'd like to both use the sandboxed library, and the original (unsandboxed) one, even for constants / defines.
The other problem is memory synchronization: typical programistic run-times don't provide info on whether a given memory pointer points to memory which will be read only by the library, or maybe will be updated, or both (const-like annotations are rarely conclusive here), hence some additional work will always be needed to correctly wrap a library function. Also, file-descriptors are just integers, and it'd require a heuristics to figure out when file-descriptor sync between the main code and the library code is needed or it's just a pure int which is used.
So, no, a fully automatic library interface would be quite impossible, at least without some kind of heuristics, and this would be error prone.
PS: One of the main ideas behind the project is represented by the motto "Sandbox once, use anywhere", so technically only one implementation of a library API is needed for all users using the same set of functions.
Hmm, you list those three problems, and they're true, but even given them the interface seems like it's more different than it needs to be. The symbols could just be all prefixed. File descriptors could be indicated with an annotation or simple function call. Memory synchronization could be managed by requiring the user to use a special allocator for anything that's going to be passed to the sandbox, and putting that memory onto an exchange heap ala Singularity. Is there a reason you didn't use these techniques?
Thanks for those ideas - some early comments on those below:
> symbols could just be all prefixed
IMO, this wouldn't be conceptually different from how it works now - i.e. calling function through a C++ object. IOW: code using sandboxing "printf" would have to be changed to use "_sanbdoxed_printf" somehow (via code or linker tricks). Unless you mean something different here?
> File descriptors could be indicated with an annotation or simple function call.
Similarly to the problem above - it's probably in line with how it works now. It can definitely be simplified (even with a simple annotation "somewhere"), but again, that wouldn't probably solve the problem of having drop-in library replacement IMO?
> use a special allocator for anything that's going to be passed to the sandbox, and putting that memory onto an exchange heap ala Singularity.
Yes, that's something we're thinking about, mainly for performance reasons. As you certainly know, it will be more complex than simply having malloc()/calloc() (and friends) operating on a shared mmap(), as memory referenced can also include stack/bss/rodata/direct-mmap etc. etc.
These are all good ideas! Thanks for sharing them - in case you'd like to comment on them more, I'd like to invite you to do that on the project's mailing list.
PS: It might also be here that you might be thinking about something slightly else. I.e. moving all annotations wrt memory/file-descriptors into some middle layer, and then exposing identical-to-the-original library API. This is probably possible, even now, with some extern "C" magic, though there are no examples or tooling on how to do that yet.
> IOW: code using sandboxing "printf" would have to be changed to use "_sanbdoxed_printf" somehow (via code or linker tricks).
I mean, linker tricks à la LD_PRELOAD, DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES are a lot less work than rewriting code. They don't even require a recompile most of the time.
I think this does however bring up an interesting point: it seems like this library is trying to solve a somewhat different subset of the sandboxing, which is the question of "how do I maintain separation if I'm writing code on both sides of the sandbox", whereas sandboxing can also include "how do I stop this arbitrary binary from doing malicious things". It seems to me that the latter usually ends up requiring support in the kernel or linker but no cooperation from the sandboxed process itself, while the former requires adoption new API (for example, macOS's XPC).
> I mean, linker tricks à la LD_PRELOAD, DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES are a lot less work than rewriting code. They don't even require a recompile most of the time.
Thanks. Also, simply providing static symbols during compilation should work (in most cases), as typically a static linker will only pick up the first provided and referenced (yet undefined) symbol.
Probably even a more "stable" (less conflicting) solution would be to use -Wl,--wrap=symbol and then provide __wrap_symbol() sandboxed definition. Agree, this all doable one way or another, and we might take a look at it at some point (we'll be glad to receive any input on that, preferably on the project's mailing list).
The thing about Lem is that he was reading a lot (I mean, a lot) of scientific journals and later scientific papers (in an interview with him he mentions Soviet "Priroda", "Scientific American", some French and German journals of this type), plus books of Dawkins/Hawking/Penrose
/Shklovsky/Soviet scientists etc., and all of that in 60's-70's-80's
Therefore his predictions are not that much original research/predictions, but rather a good compilation and clever choice of ideas which had appeared earlier in various sci papers. I suspect his quite striking description of "Kindle reader" from 60s was based on some previously read paper/article. Still, it's a very very good prediction as for 60's.
To add to his "predictions": Golem XIV is a philosophical desciption of technological singularity (from 80's), and his Summa Technologiae (from 60's) tackles a ton of then veeery novel stuff, like Machine Learning (a precise description even for today's standards), SETI research, VR, AI, and all of that in a "scientific" way, i.e. concreete and directly based on then published papers, and not simply made as an effect of extrapolation of then current trends (sort-a what Asimov liked doing)
About Asimov's predictions: those (incl. listed above) either haven't yet materialized, or are rather funny from today's perspective (Robotics, AI and "psychohistory" as described in the Foundation series). He's been rather poor futurologist IMO, contrary to the level of his popularity.
Oh man, Asimov was so bad with futuristic ideas. If you'd like to read good thoughts about future, go for Stanislaw Lem (Summa Technologiae, Golem XIV)
Maybe what the OP meant was, that Lem's works are much less known in the West than in the old good "Eastern Block", though AFAIK he's quite well known in Germany.
It's from the 60s and contains strikingly good predictions on AI, SETI, Virtual Realities, nanotechnology, multiple universes, the future of our civilization etc.etc.
Also, if you're a fan of R.Kurzweil and others predicting the technological singularity - reading Golem XIV (from 80s.) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_XIV - is a must.
I've heard this before and literally every time I hear it my mind is blown.
As a native English speaker, I cannot see any similar patterns between German in English when I happen across random conversations on a site like Reddit in German. But looking at romance languages, I can see more similarities.
Maybe it's because of my childhood environment in Texas, where most English speakers learn some basic Spanish by interacting with other people.
I would love to see a passage of German that can be intuitively reasoned about by an English speaker with no experience with German solely based on context and perhaps root words.
In all honesty I'd probably get confused though. :(
Written German and spoken German are somewhat different, just like written and spoken English are. You might find conversational German more legible.
There was an episode of Barney Miller where one of the cops was translating for a German woman. At some point she says "Das ist mein bebe." Bebe is pronounced very similar to baby and means the same thing.
I can't find a video of just the scene. It is Season 5, Episode 5 The Baby Broker.
The Daily Motion has the episode, but it keeps glitching on me. I haven't been able to get to the scene in question.
I also used to have German language resources that built on words that were readily understood by English speakers.
English is a kind of mutt language. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were Germanic tribes and old English (aka Anglo-Saxon) is a Germanic language. In 1066 good old King Harold got an arrow in his eye at the Battle of Hastings and William the Conqueror (from Normandy, France) took over. From that point on, the language of the court in England was French. Over time, more and more of the French language got mixed into what is now known as English. On top of that, in the north you had people speaking Old Norse. Quite a lot of words (IIRC apple, gate and bucket are examples) come from there.
There's plenty of obvious cognates. Without thinking too much, with rather rusty German, and from your comment:
I = ich
have = habe
hear = hören
before = bevor [in some meanings to be fair]
and = und
[Your first half sentence is a good example :)]
is = ist
can = können [and in general the whole can/können, shall/sollen, will/wollen connection - though the meanings
have drifted a bit apart]
when = wenn
learn = lernen
see = seeen
word = wort
More generally, my experience is that literal (i.e., word-for-word) translations from German to English sound weird, but often comprehensible, while literal translations from French usually end up as gibberish.
Native dutch from the eastern part that has lived in the southern part too, now in Munich and knows (and speaks) quite a lot of dialects. This sounds like someone from Luxemburg would be better at understanding. It's a mixture of dutch spoken in Limburg (soft tones, not the "hard" r and g pronounciation that is typical for the western parts of the Netherlands) but also not that modern vlaams melody. I could understand it roundabout a sgood as when I hear someone speaking Afrikaans.
If it's any help, I speak pretty good dutch, some german, and some czech (which is similar to polish) and can only understand about 1/4 of this. Any native dutch speakers can feel free to chime in, but I don't think speaking dutch is a major advantage in understanding this.
I speak (Austrian) German and it sounds a lot more like a German dialect than Dutch to me (there are so many of them, though, this is not really saying an awful lot). Like the Dutch speakers who've chimed in, I don't understand much of it but can pick out enough words to tell where the other, incomprehensible words are.
Having listened to the above youtube video, I think resemblance to allemanic might be coincidental, as it is so often.
Judging from the pronunciation, I would also put some "idioms" of this dialect in Dutch/Flemish regions (there is maybe a distinct polish influence in there that throws one off?).
As so often for me, the written word it seems is way more understandable than the spoken word. I had the same experience with Swedish. Weird how some languages kept similarities in writing longer than similar pronunciation.
There are also a lot of strange tricks personal perception and familiarity play on you. I found this easier to listen to first and then listen and look at the text together later. I similarly find myself thrown for a loop whenever I see Viennese/Bavarian written. 'Wir sind' - easy to read and hear, 'mia san' easily matches up with the former when heard. 'Mia san' written down and for a moment I have no idea what I'm looking at. Feels weird to even type it out.
German influence. Before ~1918 area was a part of German language 'island' of Bielitz. A town nearby called Hałcnów had a similar local language that was much more similar to German.
The first fragment with the old woman sounds a bit more like Dutch or Low Saxon but with heavy German influence. The second clip with the young man sounds very much like a German dialect to me (Dutch native). Understanding either of them completely would take a lot of effort.
#/media/File:Republic_of_Poland_in_mid_November_1918.PNG){kind=link}
The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.