Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
No worries, Parsifal, no offense. This stuff happens to threads all over and its a shame.
Stasoid, do you understand how Wiki works?
Stasoid, do you understand how Wiki works?
The Soviet Occupation of Poland 17.09.1939
- Thread starter v2
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My comments about derailment were not intended toward you...
- Thread starter
- #43
V2 I am sorry that your thread got derailed by people wanting to take the attention away from the suffering of the Poles.
To the Poles and the suffering they underwent by both the Germans and the Russians. Both Germany and Russia are guilty no matter how you want to look at it.
There is no sugar coating it or churching it up.
Thank you Chris. No problem for me, I think this thread make a problem for stasoid...
We must remember only one thing: Hitler started war together with Stalin. Blitzkriegs in Poland, Belgium, Netherlands,French and BoB were possibly only with Stalin's helpful...
evangilder
"Shooter"
There is no sugar coating it or churching it up.
Well put, Chris. There is a heavy Polish population where I grew up. Solidarnosc shirts were everywhere and Lech Walesa was a hero to many. I had many friends whose families were from Poland. That is where I picked up Na Z Drowie.
If anyone notice where V2s location is, Cracow, and knows enough about Polish history, Auschwitz and Birkenau were just outside of Cracow. There were 3.3 million Jew in Poland before the war. 90% of them were killed by the Nazis in what was a near complete annihilation of Polish Jews. Hundreds of thousands of Poles who were not Jewish also perished under the Nazi boot.
The Soviet "liberation" of Poland toward the end of the war did not bring relief from repression, sadly.
I'm with V2 here.
In addition I have to mention that over six milions of Poles lost their lifes during WW2.They were civilian mostly.Those killed by Stalin's regime don't mention because it is very hard to estimate how many.
What is more, I have been to Oświęcim ( Auschwitz and Birkenau ) several times.I usually visited the concentration camp without watching the documantal film which was shown there in the museum cinema.Then I decided to watch it.Guys, nobody is able to stay there to the end of the movie....
In addition I have to mention that over six milions of Poles lost their lifes during WW2.They were civilian mostly.Those killed by Stalin's regime don't mention because it is very hard to estimate how many.
What is more, I have been to Oświęcim ( Auschwitz and Birkenau ) several times.I usually visited the concentration camp without watching the documantal film which was shown there in the museum cinema.Then I decided to watch it.Guys, nobody is able to stay there to the end of the movie....
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I think Stasoid and Harvard are brothers. 
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Maybe FDR was too liberal. Maybe that's why he chose Stalin as an ally. Winston Churchill? I thought he was a conservative but I guess he figured the Soviets could do as good a job destroying the Germans as the British and Americans ever could.
parsifal
Colonel
Make no mistake, the allied victory was in large measure won by the Soviets. Everybody had a role to play...US was the "arsenal Of Democrqacy, Britain and Commonwealth provided naval power, army strength in the Pacific, , support to the Americans, and the "moral leadership" by never surrendering. And the Soviets? They occupied and defeated the major part of the wehrmacht, occupying the attentions of over 80% of german units (in terms combat time) and the lions share of german casulaties were suffered at the hands of the red Army.
The importance of the Russians to the Allied victory should not be under-estimated. This is the huge conundrum for me. On the one hand they are our deliverers from an evil far worse than they, yet on the other they subjugated and badly mistreated nearly all those who fell under their power, but particulalry the Poles.
war was won mostly by the Soviets, with the west acting in a support
The importance of the Russians to the Allied victory should not be under-estimated. This is the huge conundrum for me. On the one hand they are our deliverers from an evil far worse than they, yet on the other they subjugated and badly mistreated nearly all those who fell under their power, but particulalry the Poles.
war was won mostly by the Soviets, with the west acting in a support
JugBR
Staff Sergeant
very realistic words of parsifal.
is good to remember, 180 divisions of german army, was used against ussr, more than 3 milion men, isntead afrika korps used just 2 panzer divisions.
wasnt fdr or churchill who choosen moscow as allied. hitler choosen stalin to be british allied, when he broke the treaty between germany and ussr.
is good to remember, 180 divisions of german army, was used against ussr, more than 3 milion men, isntead afrika korps used just 2 panzer divisions.
wasnt fdr or churchill who choosen moscow as allied. hitler choosen stalin to be british allied, when he broke the treaty between germany and ussr.
And do you really think that it excuses their crimes?
In my opinion it was the same evil but with another face.
I agree 100%. The crimes were no less or different.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
The wolf in sheep's clothing.
parsifal
Colonel
I agree that the Soviets are just as guilty as the germans, and that their crimes, in their effect, are just as bad, However, it is untrue to say that they are the same as the germans
If it was as easy as being able to say "the Soviets are the same as the germans" it would be a "no brainer". But Soviet Policy was not the same as German Policy, and that makes the whole issue more difficult.
The germans had a basic theme in all of their eastern european policy. they wanted the current occupants of those territories dead, so as to make "living space " for germans. It was a crackpot theory, but it was the policy of the third reich nevertheless
Soviet policy toward the eastern european countries was different, and it changed as the war progressed. In 1939 Stalins initial position was to form a collective security pact aimed at containing the germans, but this was rejected by the Western European powers, particulalrly Britain. If it had been adopted, it would almost certainly have seen Soviet troops fighting alongside Poles against germans in poland in 1939, or better yet, no fighting at all.
However, it would be naive to suppose that Soviet intentions were all platonic. The soviet objective were the spread of communisim, by fair means or foul, and the domination of eastern europe for both economic and political advantage. postwar this was extended to provided a defence buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union. Whilst Soviet Policy was completely oblivious to the intersts of eastern europe it was not, in itseldf murderous in intent. Soviets might use murder as a means to and end, but unlike the germans it was not THE end of their policy
If it was as easy as being able to say "the Soviets are the same as the germans" it would be a "no brainer". But Soviet Policy was not the same as German Policy, and that makes the whole issue more difficult.
The germans had a basic theme in all of their eastern european policy. they wanted the current occupants of those territories dead, so as to make "living space " for germans. It was a crackpot theory, but it was the policy of the third reich nevertheless
Soviet policy toward the eastern european countries was different, and it changed as the war progressed. In 1939 Stalins initial position was to form a collective security pact aimed at containing the germans, but this was rejected by the Western European powers, particulalrly Britain. If it had been adopted, it would almost certainly have seen Soviet troops fighting alongside Poles against germans in poland in 1939, or better yet, no fighting at all.
However, it would be naive to suppose that Soviet intentions were all platonic. The soviet objective were the spread of communisim, by fair means or foul, and the domination of eastern europe for both economic and political advantage. postwar this was extended to provided a defence buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union. Whilst Soviet Policy was completely oblivious to the intersts of eastern europe it was not, in itseldf murderous in intent. Soviets might use murder as a means to and end, but unlike the germans it was not THE end of their policy
Dear Parsifal,
Fortunately you live far far away form the part of Europe you are trying to talk about.You evan cannot imagine what Russians did here in that time and later.In your opinion the Nazi Germans and Soviets are two different things.But the only difference is at places where they settled their concentration camps and methods they used for human extermination.
You are talking about the Nazi German's policy of "living space " and the Russian communisim.Do you really think that these two expression have a different meaning? If yes please, change your library and books you read usually about German-Polish-Russian's connections.
You have written "If it had been adopted, it would almost certainly have seen Soviet troops fighting alongside Poles against germans in poland in 1939".It is a joke of course.I like kidding but not this time.
How it could be possible at all? In 1919/1921 when the young Soviet country tried to offer the communisim to the Westen Europe, the first country which got in the way this was Poland whose statehood had just been re-established.One of the defeated Soviet's commanders was Joseph Stalin who was an unforgiving and vindictive man.So as long as Poland was independent country there was not any possiblity to make the Soviet communism wide-spread in the Europe and even all over the world.Therefore Stalin tried to do that via Spain.So don't tell us that Poles could fight against Germans going alangside Soviets in 1939.Poland always stood alone against Germans, Russians and others neighbours.
Fortunately you live far far away form the part of Europe you are trying to talk about.You evan cannot imagine what Russians did here in that time and later.In your opinion the Nazi Germans and Soviets are two different things.But the only difference is at places where they settled their concentration camps and methods they used for human extermination.
You are talking about the Nazi German's policy of "living space " and the Russian communisim.Do you really think that these two expression have a different meaning? If yes please, change your library and books you read usually about German-Polish-Russian's connections.
You have written "If it had been adopted, it would almost certainly have seen Soviet troops fighting alongside Poles against germans in poland in 1939".It is a joke of course.I like kidding but not this time.
How it could be possible at all? In 1919/1921 when the young Soviet country tried to offer the communisim to the Westen Europe, the first country which got in the way this was Poland whose statehood had just been re-established.One of the defeated Soviet's commanders was Joseph Stalin who was an unforgiving and vindictive man.So as long as Poland was independent country there was not any possiblity to make the Soviet communism wide-spread in the Europe and even all over the world.Therefore Stalin tried to do that via Spain.So don't tell us that Poles could fight against Germans going alangside Soviets in 1939.Poland always stood alone against Germans, Russians and others neighbours.
parsifal
Colonel
Hi Wurger
Having problems with my connection again, so i will have to put this reply together in pieces 9I keep losing my connection to the site)
I will give you the Link to the relavant Wiki article, which may help you understand whay I am sayiung what i did. I did not consult or use the article before making my last post on this thread
Molotovâ€"Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Franco-British negotiations with the Soviet Union
In March 1939, Hitler's denunciation of the 1934 German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact was taken by the Soviets as a clear signal of Hitler's aggressive intentions. In April, Soviet foreign minister Litvinov outlined a French–British–Soviet alliance, with military commitments against Fascist powers, but Chamberlain's government procrastinated (partly because the Soviets demanded too much – impossible troop commitments, Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, complete reciprocity, and the right to send troops through Poland).
Chamberlain, however, had already on 24 March, along with France, guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, and subsequently on 25 April signed a Common Defence Pact with Poland. Consequently, Stalin no longer feared that the West would leave the Soviet Union to fight Hitler alone; indeed, if Germany and the West went to war, as seemed likely, the USSR could afford to remain neutral and wait for them to destroy each other.
Negotiations between the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom for a military alliance against Germany stalled, mainly due to mutual suspicions. The Soviet Union sought guarantees for support against German aggression and recognition of the right of the Soviet Union to act against "a change of policy favorable to an aggressor" in the countries along the western Soviet border. Although none of the affected countries had formally asked for protection by the Soviet Union, it nevertheless announced "guarantees for the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Greece", the so-called "cordon sanitaire" erected between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The British and French feared that this would allow Soviet intervention in neighboring countries' internal affairs, even in the absence of an immediate external German threat.
However, with the Third Reich now demanding territorial concessions from Poland in the face of Polish opposition, the threat of war was increasing. Although telegrams were exchanged between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union as early as April 1939, the military missions sent by the Western Powers (on a slow transport vessel) did not arrive in Moscow until August 11, and were given no authority to conduct talks resulting in binding agreements or to sign treaties.
During the first phase of the negotiations begun in April 1939, the Anglo-French side was unwilling to create a formal military alliance as suggested by the USSR. However, the Western leaders soon gave up and suggested a military alliance in May. A couple of proposals were made by both sides. On June 2, 1939, the Soviet Union submitted its proposal, which suggested tripartite military action under three circumstances:
in case a European Power (i.e., Germany) attacked a contracting party;
in case of German aggression against Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland (all of whom the contracting parties had promised to defend);
in case of the involvement of a participant in war due to rendering assistance to a European country which has pled for aid.
This proposal was discussed for the next two months, until the Western allies eventually accepted it almost completely. Molotov suggested signing the (political) alliance treaty together with the military treaty, for which Western delegations were sent to Moscow.
The military negotiations lasted from August 12 to August 17. On August 14, the question of Poland was raised by Voroshilov for the first time. The Polish government feared that the Soviet government sought to annex disputed territories, the Eastern Borderlands, received by Poland in 1920 after the Treaty of Riga ending the Polish–Soviet War. Therefore, the Polish government refused to allow the Soviet military to enter its territory and establish military bases[citation needed].
Three weeks into August the negotiations ground to a halt, with each side doubting the other's motives. It should also be noted that the Soviets had already had contacts with the Germans throughout the spring of 1939. The Soviet Union pursued secret talks with Nazi Germany, while conducting public ones with United Kingdom and France. From the beginning of the negotiations with France and Britain it was clear that Soviet position required agreeing to their occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania . Finland was to be included in Soviet sphere of influence as well. The public nature of talks with France and Britain increased the pressure on Hitler by Stalin to heighten his price in reward for alliance with the Soviets .
The article goes on to say that Stalin abandoned the collective security proposals because he could see that the allies were still following a policy of appeasement....I dont fully accept that because it seems to me that the real sticking point was the Soviet territorial demands in eastern europe and the issue of Poland. The Poles steadfastly refused to accept the right of passage for Soviet troops, and these reservations were reflected in the Western allied responses to Stalins proposals.
In my opinion, the Poles in 1939 were faced with some difficult choices. They either had to accept Soviet troops into Poland to fight alongside them against the germans (and yes, this was the case), or they accede to german demands. They did neither, and paid the price for that intransigence.
The Poles for me rpresent a gallant and proud ally that faced a situation that is extremely unenviable. I dont know if a collective security arrangement with Russia would have been better for Poland or not, but its hard to imagine the outcome being any worse than it actually turned out to be.
You mention that I should check my library, which is always a welcome suggestion. Do you have any English language suggestions that I should have a look at that repudiates the Soviet offers for collective security in 1939. I should very much like to have a look at them.
You also mention that I am far removed from the affairs of eastern europe. Very true, but in a sense this might be a benfit. i have no agenda, no pre-conveived biases to influence my reading of the situation
You also say that there is no difference between Nazism and Communism. I have to say that is not correct. The Nazis demonstrated, and had written what they intended to do in eastern europe. A small issue that prevented them from fully implementing that policy was that they lost the war. The Soviets won the war, occupied Poland (along with the rest of eastern europe) and proceeded to do what? It was not a policy of extermination...it was a policy of exploitation and domination, but it was not extermination, which is what i believe would have been the case if the germans had won. I am not saying that the Soviet methods were not cruel, or that the SWoviets were not above murder, or mass murder. They were. but the proof that they were not following genocidal policies is self evident. they didnt commit genocide in the post war occupation therefore (assuming that the Nazis were intending to commit genocide), they canot be considered the same as the Nazis
Having problems with my connection again, so i will have to put this reply together in pieces 9I keep losing my connection to the site)
I will give you the Link to the relavant Wiki article, which may help you understand whay I am sayiung what i did. I did not consult or use the article before making my last post on this thread
Molotovâ€"Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Franco-British negotiations with the Soviet Union
In March 1939, Hitler's denunciation of the 1934 German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact was taken by the Soviets as a clear signal of Hitler's aggressive intentions. In April, Soviet foreign minister Litvinov outlined a French–British–Soviet alliance, with military commitments against Fascist powers, but Chamberlain's government procrastinated (partly because the Soviets demanded too much – impossible troop commitments, Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, complete reciprocity, and the right to send troops through Poland).
Chamberlain, however, had already on 24 March, along with France, guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, and subsequently on 25 April signed a Common Defence Pact with Poland. Consequently, Stalin no longer feared that the West would leave the Soviet Union to fight Hitler alone; indeed, if Germany and the West went to war, as seemed likely, the USSR could afford to remain neutral and wait for them to destroy each other.
Negotiations between the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom for a military alliance against Germany stalled, mainly due to mutual suspicions. The Soviet Union sought guarantees for support against German aggression and recognition of the right of the Soviet Union to act against "a change of policy favorable to an aggressor" in the countries along the western Soviet border. Although none of the affected countries had formally asked for protection by the Soviet Union, it nevertheless announced "guarantees for the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Greece", the so-called "cordon sanitaire" erected between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The British and French feared that this would allow Soviet intervention in neighboring countries' internal affairs, even in the absence of an immediate external German threat.
However, with the Third Reich now demanding territorial concessions from Poland in the face of Polish opposition, the threat of war was increasing. Although telegrams were exchanged between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union as early as April 1939, the military missions sent by the Western Powers (on a slow transport vessel) did not arrive in Moscow until August 11, and were given no authority to conduct talks resulting in binding agreements or to sign treaties.
During the first phase of the negotiations begun in April 1939, the Anglo-French side was unwilling to create a formal military alliance as suggested by the USSR. However, the Western leaders soon gave up and suggested a military alliance in May. A couple of proposals were made by both sides. On June 2, 1939, the Soviet Union submitted its proposal, which suggested tripartite military action under three circumstances:
in case a European Power (i.e., Germany) attacked a contracting party;
in case of German aggression against Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland (all of whom the contracting parties had promised to defend);
in case of the involvement of a participant in war due to rendering assistance to a European country which has pled for aid.
This proposal was discussed for the next two months, until the Western allies eventually accepted it almost completely. Molotov suggested signing the (political) alliance treaty together with the military treaty, for which Western delegations were sent to Moscow.
The military negotiations lasted from August 12 to August 17. On August 14, the question of Poland was raised by Voroshilov for the first time. The Polish government feared that the Soviet government sought to annex disputed territories, the Eastern Borderlands, received by Poland in 1920 after the Treaty of Riga ending the Polish–Soviet War. Therefore, the Polish government refused to allow the Soviet military to enter its territory and establish military bases[citation needed].
Three weeks into August the negotiations ground to a halt, with each side doubting the other's motives. It should also be noted that the Soviets had already had contacts with the Germans throughout the spring of 1939. The Soviet Union pursued secret talks with Nazi Germany, while conducting public ones with United Kingdom and France. From the beginning of the negotiations with France and Britain it was clear that Soviet position required agreeing to their occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania . Finland was to be included in Soviet sphere of influence as well. The public nature of talks with France and Britain increased the pressure on Hitler by Stalin to heighten his price in reward for alliance with the Soviets .
The article goes on to say that Stalin abandoned the collective security proposals because he could see that the allies were still following a policy of appeasement....I dont fully accept that because it seems to me that the real sticking point was the Soviet territorial demands in eastern europe and the issue of Poland. The Poles steadfastly refused to accept the right of passage for Soviet troops, and these reservations were reflected in the Western allied responses to Stalins proposals.
In my opinion, the Poles in 1939 were faced with some difficult choices. They either had to accept Soviet troops into Poland to fight alongside them against the germans (and yes, this was the case), or they accede to german demands. They did neither, and paid the price for that intransigence.
The Poles for me rpresent a gallant and proud ally that faced a situation that is extremely unenviable. I dont know if a collective security arrangement with Russia would have been better for Poland or not, but its hard to imagine the outcome being any worse than it actually turned out to be.
You mention that I should check my library, which is always a welcome suggestion. Do you have any English language suggestions that I should have a look at that repudiates the Soviet offers for collective security in 1939. I should very much like to have a look at them.
You also mention that I am far removed from the affairs of eastern europe. Very true, but in a sense this might be a benfit. i have no agenda, no pre-conveived biases to influence my reading of the situation
You also say that there is no difference between Nazism and Communism. I have to say that is not correct. The Nazis demonstrated, and had written what they intended to do in eastern europe. A small issue that prevented them from fully implementing that policy was that they lost the war. The Soviets won the war, occupied Poland (along with the rest of eastern europe) and proceeded to do what? It was not a policy of extermination...it was a policy of exploitation and domination, but it was not extermination, which is what i believe would have been the case if the germans had won. I am not saying that the Soviet methods were not cruel, or that the SWoviets were not above murder, or mass murder. They were. but the proof that they were not following genocidal policies is self evident. they didnt commit genocide in the post war occupation therefore (assuming that the Nazis were intending to commit genocide), they canot be considered the same as the Nazis
- Thread starter
- #58
Hi parsifal,
I found interesting book for you, best then wiki....
Amazon.com: Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar: Simon Sebag Montefiore: Books
I found interesting book for you, best then wiki....
Amazon.com: Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar: Simon Sebag Montefiore: Books
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
parsifal
Colonel
Thanks
I will try and get a copy. i read one or two of the the reviews from the Link you provided. it seems to suggest that Stalin was at one turn a homicidal monster, full of paranoia, and in the next instant, a gentle friend and family man. This is in fact pretty close to my impression of him....a totally unpredictable maniac who could turn on someone, or an entire community for the slightest of reasons. It must have been torture living or working closely for him....the book should make intersting reading
I will try and get a copy. i read one or two of the the reviews from the Link you provided. it seems to suggest that Stalin was at one turn a homicidal monster, full of paranoia, and in the next instant, a gentle friend and family man. This is in fact pretty close to my impression of him....a totally unpredictable maniac who could turn on someone, or an entire community for the slightest of reasons. It must have been torture living or working closely for him....the book should make intersting reading
Hi Parsifal,
After Polish-Soviet war in 1919-21 the bias against Soviets was so huge that there wasn't any possiblity to meet half way.So no wonder Polish government refused to accept the right of passage for Soviet troops.In their opinion it was Stalin's trap for taking-over the control over some Polish territory.And it could be the first step to bring communizm to the part of the Europe and then farther.To stop it the Polish Government couldn't agree with Stalin's idea.
Unfortunately this is a problem.There aren't many books translated into English where you can read about the matter.
Yes it maybe a benefit for you.But many Western people still thinking that Poland is a part of Russia.Their opinions about my country and the Eastern Europe affairs are incorrect.
I think you still don't understand .You have stated that the Nazis loudly showed and wrote their intention what they wanted to do in Eastern Europe.It is true.Therefore all people in all over the world knew about this.Poland has been fighting against Germany for ages.And we could expect what they wanted.But Stalin didn't show his true colours at all.That's way there aren't many who know the truth.You wrote it wasn't the extermination but exploitation and domination only.So how to call the mass displacement of all Poles ( and not only Poles) from the territory taken-over in 1939 using stock-cars without water, food etc..to places in Syberia or Kazakhstan where my countrymen died and suffered from starvation,ilnesses etc.. where they were beaten,tortured, put down and murderd of course not in the way like the Nazis did but slowly step by step.Yep.... you are right exploitation.... for the death.How many times do Poles have to prove to the Western people that the Nazism and Communism were the same?
my best
After Polish-Soviet war in 1919-21 the bias against Soviets was so huge that there wasn't any possiblity to meet half way.So no wonder Polish government refused to accept the right of passage for Soviet troops.In their opinion it was Stalin's trap for taking-over the control over some Polish territory.And it could be the first step to bring communizm to the part of the Europe and then farther.To stop it the Polish Government couldn't agree with Stalin's idea.
Unfortunately this is a problem.There aren't many books translated into English where you can read about the matter.
Yes it maybe a benefit for you.But many Western people still thinking that Poland is a part of Russia.Their opinions about my country and the Eastern Europe affairs are incorrect.
I think you still don't understand .You have stated that the Nazis loudly showed and wrote their intention what they wanted to do in Eastern Europe.It is true.Therefore all people in all over the world knew about this.Poland has been fighting against Germany for ages.And we could expect what they wanted.But Stalin didn't show his true colours at all.That's way there aren't many who know the truth.You wrote it wasn't the extermination but exploitation and domination only.So how to call the mass displacement of all Poles ( and not only Poles) from the territory taken-over in 1939 using stock-cars without water, food etc..to places in Syberia or Kazakhstan where my countrymen died and suffered from starvation,ilnesses etc.. where they were beaten,tortured, put down and murderd of course not in the way like the Nazis did but slowly step by step.Yep.... you are right exploitation.... for the death.How many times do Poles have to prove to the Western people that the Nazism and Communism were the same?
my best
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
