Aniversary Of Soviet Russians and Nazi Germans joining efforts to destroy Poland [Archive]

Switek

09-17-2007, 11:01 AM

Ok what does it mean for today:

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Maxim Krans) - When Russia was recognized as the de facto successor to the U.S.S.R. it inherited not only its property, nuclear arsenal and a huge foreign debt, but also the heavy, often unbearable, burden of historic responsibility for the policies and actions of former regimes.

A new feature film from the outstanding film director Andrzej Wajda, which will be released in the next few days, serves as a timely reminder of this. It is devoted to the Katyn tragedy -- a sensitive issue, which has marred Russian-Polish relations for years. Wajda, who lost his father in the Katyn forest, has said more than once that he does not wish his film to be political. But films have a habit of taking on a life of their own, regardless of their director's wishes, and once it is released it may well be seized on by others as a political weapon.

The facts of the matter seemed to have been finally established in 1990, when TASS issued its first statement on the Katyn tragedy. It admitted that the officers imprisoned by the Red Army during partition of Poland had been killed by the NKVD. Two years later, Boris Yeltsin handed Polish President Lech Walesa materials from a secret folder, which successive Communist Party general secretaries had kept under lock and key. This file included an excerpt from protocol #13 of the Central Committee Politburo session of March 5, 1940, which passed a death sentence on Polish officers, policemen, government officials, landlords, factory owners and other "counterrevolutionary elements" who were kept in forced labor camps (14,700) and prisons in western Ukraine and Byelorussia (11,000).

The same protocol ordered a review of cases, in absentia and without filing charges. As a result POWs from the Kozel camp were shot in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, while those detained in Starobelsk and Ostashkov were taken to local execution sites. In a secret memo to Nikita Khrushchev in 1959, KGB chief Alexander Shelepin reported that about 22,000 Poles had been killed. More than 200,000 relatives of POWs, and almost as many Poles from the "Soviet-liberated" territories were deported to exile in Kazakhstan, Siberia and the North.

These are hard facts. After 50 years of secrecy and cover-up, the Soviet and Russian presidents admitted the Stalinist regime's responsibility for this heinous crime. Memorials in honor of Polish POWs rose at their burial sites. Repeating Willy Brandt's iconic act of contrition, Boris Yeltsin knelt before the monument to the Katyn officers at a military cemetery in Warsaw.

But the question of repentance has refused to be laid to rest. On the eve of Vladimir Putin's visit to Poland in 2002, President Aleksander Kwasniewski demanded official apologies from his Russian counterpart. The current Polish leader Lech Kaczynski still insists on them.

Although Putin has apologized for the past in Budapest and Prague, he is unlikely to do so in Poland. During that visit to Poland in 2002, he refused to draw comparisons between Nazi and Stalinist crimes, instead suggesting that it might be possible to extend the Russian law on the rehabilitation of victims of Stalinism to the Polish citizens involved. But when campaigners from Memorial, a Moscow based human rights group, appealed to a Moscow court for the relatives to be granted the status of victims of political repression, the answer was a categorical "no".

Moreover, in defiance of the previous Russian position, the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office halted the inquiry into the Katyn case, citing the absence of genocide and the death of the guilty officials. Most of the documents of the 14 year-long investigation were classified.

Prominent Polish publicist Jerzy Urban thinks this decision was a way of avoiding paying compensation to the victim's families. He wrote in the Nie weekly: "If Poland created a precedent with compensation, the whole family of Soviet peoples plus peace-loving nations of the socialist camp would rush to Russia with an outstretched hand." Maybe so - at any rate Prosecutor General Nikolai Turbin hinted at this possibility in his letter to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

If Poles were insulted and indignant at the decision to close the investigation, in Russia it inspired Stalinists and nationalists. With renewed zeal they started reiterating the old Soviet version that the Nazis were responsible for the massacre, even though it had already been refuted by documented evidence. Governor Aman Tuleyev demanded that Warsaw "repent in turn" for the Red Army soldiers who perished in camps during the Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921.

But an unbiased look at the current flurry of recriminations reveals a more serious split than different versions of history. It is not rooted in the distant past, which abounds in mutual grievances, but in the early 1990s. Euphoric with sudden freedom, both nations were eager to rid themselves of the fetters of communism as soon as possible. But in the hurry to exorcise the recent past, they also lost the valuable political, economic, and, last but not the least, human contacts, which had existed between our nations since ancient times.

Over the following years we drifted so far apart that by the time we entered the new millennium our relations were zero, or even negative. Today, they resemble a fencing tournament, in which each side responds to (what is sees as) a sensitive attack with its own phrase d'arms: a meat ban rebounds in the form of a veto on a strategic EU agreement; a Baltic gas pipeline is followed by a welcome to U.S. missiles, and so on.

On both sides ambitions and injured pride are overriding pragmatism. This is not only sad - it is also bad. Compromise is essential for neighbors in Europe.

"Katyn. Prisoners of Undeclared War," is the title of a collection of documents compiled by Russian and Polish historians and archivists. In today's uneasy bilateral context, this title acquires a symbolic significance. Having introduced old historical arguments to current politics, the leaders of our countries have fallen prisoner to long-discredited myths and stereotypes, themselves the restless survivors of the era of this undeclared war.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070912/78405407.html

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 11:33 AM

I understand the sorrow and hard feelings.

But I don't understand why Russia should take the sole responsibility for Stalin's crimes.

Like was said in the article, it could lead to a ridiculous situation in which ex-Soviet countries could try and make their own claims against Russia.

Switek

09-17-2007, 11:44 AM

Flamming_Python, the key is that Russia is a legal ancestor of USSR.

And one remark: Poland has never been a part of Soviet Union.

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 11:52 AM

Flamming_Python, the key is that Russia is a legal ancestor of USSR.

And one remark: Poland has never been a part of Soviet Union.

Successor not Ancestor ;)

There is certainly a perception in Russia that the Soviet Union was just another version/incarnation of the nation of Russia. But I don't agree with it. It was more like a revolutionary movement controlled by internationalist communists that gradually became a nation state after WW2. Russian nationalism wasn't tolerated any more than any other nationalism by Stalin or Lenin until the most desperate days of WW2. After WW2, you could perhaps say that the USSR took on a slightly more Russian flavour in some respects, but the Katyn massacre happened in 1940.

I believe the ideal solution would be to perhaps form a comittee or organisation that represents each former-Soviet country and deals especially with these kinds of reparations or assuming responsibility.

Herrmannek

09-17-2007, 12:08 PM

Switek

09-17-2007, 12:24 PM

Herrmann, This thread will turn into a flame war sooner or later, so far we have been keeping a civil discussion.

Mamont

09-17-2007, 12:27 PM

Hmm, why France and England are left out? Also i think Smigly also must be the first figure to mention. Without his effort this aniversary might never had happened.

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 12:39 PM

Don't flame guys :) This is just reminder for those who wish to fully celebrate Soviet victory over Nazis and deny to remember same Soviets were actively supporting and legitimizing Nazi actions and had nothing formal against it until one bandit jumped to throat of another. Wrong doings that include persecutions, mass murders, work camps, property acquisition and mass deportations...

Battles if Soviets are same country as Russia are pretty pointless. Being right or wrong in this dispute depends only on the point of view.

I think it was a terrible massacre that should be acknowledged without doubt. But remember Hermannek it was a pretty bad time period for Europe in general, and like usual in war everyone is guilty. I didn't hear the Poles complaining any more about dividing Czechoslovakia with Germany in 1938 than I heard the complaints about the 15,000-20,000 Soviet POW's that died in Polish concentration camps during the 1920's.

The only thing I want to avoid is for ANY of these events to turn into another battering ram to use against Russia, Poland, Germany or anyone else, and unfortunately such things usually spin out into politics and are used as part of someone's agenda sooner or latter. Let's just respect the memory of those who died and vow that no-one will let it happen again.

a_very_ex_STAB

09-17-2007, 12:45 PM

Hmm, why France and England are left out?

Maybe because France and England did not try to invade Poland.

mas-36

09-17-2007, 12:46 PM

Hmm, why France and England are left out? Also i think Smigly also must be the first figure to mention. Without his effort this aniversary might never had happened.

Because there was really nothing viable that either could have done. Despite this, Poles tend to blame all their ills on both UK and FR. This cannot ignore the hard fact that, before a single bullet was fired, the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement sealed Poland's fate. This took everyone by surprise, and even the silliest of all people could realize then that Poland was in a trap from which she could not escape, sad as it may be. Nevertheless, let's go and blame UK/FR, rather than the real culprits, Nazi Germany/USSR.

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 12:49 PM

Because there was really nothing viable that either could have done. Despite this, Poles tend to blame all their ills on both UK and FR. This cannot ignore the hard fact that, before a single bullet was fired, the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement sealed Poland's fate. This took everyone by surprise, and even the silliest of all people could realize then that Poland was in a trap from which she could not escape, sad as it may be. Nevertheless, let's go and blame UK/FR, rather than the real culprits, Nazi Germany/USSR.

Well the whole reason that France and Britain declared war on Germany is because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If the USSR and Germany were still on track to kill each other as originally planned (preferably with a German victory), than more than likely the Western Allies would have let Hitler roll over Poland as free as he rolled over Czechoslovakia.

a_very_ex_STAB

09-17-2007, 12:52 PM

Well the whole reason that France and Britain declared war on Germany is because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If the USSR and Germany were still on track to kill each other as originally planned (preferably with a German victory), than more than likely the Western Allies would have let Hitler roll over Poland as free as he rolled over Czechoslovakia.

If that was case then why did the British and French wait until Poland was attacked? The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was sometime before IIRC. Nobody in the British establishment wanted war - they weren't ready for it they had to declare war because of treaty obligations to Poland even though for simple geographical reasons there was really nothing direct they could do to help the Poles.

mas-36

09-17-2007, 12:54 PM

Well the whole reason that France and Britain declared war on Germany is because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If the USSR and Germany were still on track to kill each other as originally planned (preferably with a German victory), than more than likely the Western Allies would have let Hitler roll over Poland as free as he rolled over Czechoslovakia.

You think? UK and FR declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, not because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. WW 2 could have ended in 1939, if FR and the UK had not honored their agreement with Poland to declare war on Germany in the eventuality that Poland be invaded.

Oh, and about Czechoslovakia, I believe Poland may have benefitted from the Munich agreement of 1938 as well, taking eastern Silesia, or about 800 sq. km of land and over 250,000 of it's inhabitants.

vanquisher

09-17-2007, 01:22 PM

You think? UK and FR declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, not because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. WW 2 could have ended in 1939, if FR and the UK had not honored their agreement with Poland to declare war on Germany in the eventuality that Poland be invaded.

Oh, and about Czechoslovakia, I believe Poland may have benefitted from the Munich agreement of 1938 as well, taking eastern Silesia, or about 800 sq. km of land and over 250,000 of it's inhabitants.

War could end in 1939 if UK and FR had honored the agreement and made effort to attack Germany. Maby it was politically impossible and against French military plans, but still way more probable than end of war in case of breaking the agreement.

Generally everybody in Poland agrees that taking part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was a stupid and shamefull action (although insignificant in comparison with other events in 1938). If there wasn't any official apologies, i can post mine now :)

Note that we were prohibited to mention about 1939 sept 17 Soviet attack before 1989. Thats why Poles focus so much on this anniversary.

a_very_ex_STAB

09-17-2007, 01:52 PM

War could end in 1939 if UK and FR had honored the agreement and made effort to attack Germany.

France might have had the capability - it had the largest army in Europe at the time but there is no way the UK could have done that in Sept 1939

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 01:58 PM

War could have ended if Soviet Union was allowed to march it's troops through Poland and into Czechoslovakia in order to stop Hitler's forces entering it. Of course the Poles were rightly afraid that the Red Army could stop by Warsaw and shuffle around the political cabinet a little, and in any case Poland had at least a little to gain from Czechoslovakia's demise.

We could go on and on about how war could have been avoided, but the fact is that leading up to WW2 there were 3 major sides all opposed to each other, and all trying to manuever themselves into the best position to play off everyone else against each other, trampling on smaller, less important countries on the way.

As to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Admitedly it's only speculation on my part, but that speculation comes from a conversation I had with a friend a few months ago. Namely, the West wanted Hitler to act as a bulwark against Stalin's USSR (hence all the appeasement of Chamberlain's years), so where does Poland fit into to this plan? They thought they could use Hitler, but he proved to have too much of his own agenda to carry through, and became far too belligerant & powerful.

I would also question, why if both Germany and the USSR declared war on Poland, did the West only declare war on Germany? Admitedly the USSR only invaded Poland when the government had already collapsed and German victory was certain, but that was the plan from the beggining. The anwser of course that the West was doing the smart, pragmatic thing. It realised that if it declared war on both, it would only push Germany and the USSR into an unholy alliance, so it decided to try and snap the co-operation before it started. Germany and the USSR were of course natural enemies, but WW2 as I said, was about 3 players in a warzone only big enough for 2. Whoever got ganged up on would loose, leaving the victors to pursue a Cold War against each other. As it turned out the West played its cards well and Hitler faltered, leaving the West and USSR to smash him into submission.

mas-36

09-17-2007, 02:08 PM

France might have had the capability - it had the largest army in Europe at the time but there is no way the UK could have done that in Sept 1939

There is no way France could have done so either, at least not without violating international law. Everyone knows that the best way to attack Germany is through Belgium, and vice versa. Belgium had declared herself neutral. For France to invade Germany via Belgium would have been a major violation and possibly provide Germany with a propaganda coup of immense proportions.

So the only way left, as the French generals saw it, was through the Saar valley. This little offensive amounted to nothing simply because in the valley there is nothing to hold, or from which to launch an attack. Mind you the German Siegfried line was within range of tossing artillery upon the French at that point too. The best decision was to stop the silly offensive because it would ultimately lead to nowhere and it was also againt the wider military doctrine of defensive strategy on the part of the French military.

Noteworthy, that in 1936, when Hitler marched his armies into the Rhineland, France DID want to expel them militarily, but wanted reassurances from her major allies (US/UK) that they would back France in this operation. Both the US/UK said NO, citing that France would be launching a pre-emptive strike which could lead to a wider war. (now doesn't THAT sound familiar?) If the French had been the ones to instigate a war, they would have been politically, diplomatically, militarily and even possibly economically isolated.

France then wanted to impose economic sanctions, but the US/UK also shot down this idea. Besides, didn't an aide to N. Chamberlaine (or perhaps Chamberlaine himself) say that afterall, the Germans were only reclaiming what was already theirs in the first place?

The biggest fault in the UK/FR was that they both severely overestimated Germany's forces in the 2-3 years before the war. Besides that, there was really nothing either could have done realistically to help Poland.

mas-36

09-17-2007, 02:11 PM

As to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Admitedly it's only speculation on my part, but that speculation comes from a conversation I had with a friend a few months ago. Namely, the West wanted Hitler to act as a bulwark against Stalin's USSR, so where does Poland fit into to this plan? They thought they could use Hitler, but he proved to have too much of his own agenda to carry through, and became far too belligerant & powerful.

Though it is purely speculation, it's interesting enough to ponder it. There was indeed a plan in the works to send British and French troops to Finland to help them fight the Soviets. When WW 2 started however, these troops were instead sent to Norway.

Mishka Zubov

09-17-2007, 02:44 PM

I think it was a terrible massacre that should be acknowledged without doubt. But remember Hermannek it was a pretty bad time period for Europe in general, and like usual in war everyone is guilty. I didn't hear the Poles complaining any more about dividing Czechoslovakia with Germany in 1938 than I heard the complaints about the 15,000-20,000 Soviet POW's that died in Polish concentration camps during the 1920's.

The only thing I want to avoid is for ANY of these events to turn into another battering ram to use against Russia, Poland, Germany or anyone else, and unfortunately such things usually spin out into politics and are used as part of someone's agenda sooner or latter. Let's just respect the memory of those who died and vow that no-one will let it happen again.

That's right - relativism is a good tool, which leads to this:
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/875/stalinbigru4.jpg

"Not a step back"and then to re-writing the history.

Some excerpts from a Polityka article:

(...)
Russians hear for some time that all that unmeasurable depth of atrocities was an inevitable cost of great modernization undertaken by Stalin. Russia had to become a world power and therefore Stalin deserves to be called one of the greatest statesmen. Before him was Peter the 1st, after him is only Putin - because thanks to him, after the Great Sorrow of the last decade of 20 century, Russia is becoming great again.

For today's Kreml any ideological disputes are completely irrelevant. In the Putin's concept of a state the czarist Russia can coexist with communist Russia; one can relate to Orthodox Church and at the same time praise the KGB, which fought with Church and murdered Orthodox clergy. The only binder is in fact an imperialistic idea - a slogan of strong Russia and recreation of its position as the world's superpower.

This ideology has been presented, in a condensed form, in recently published methodology handbooks for high-school teachers - "The newest history of Russia 1945-2006" and "The world in 21th century." According to the authors, Russians have no reason to abash the past. To hell with self-flogging. The hell with the hostile West which has tried to impose on Russians its own vision of history, demanding from them accounting for their past, presented as a continuum of murders, to which they are guilty of. Admit-tingly - and those are the words of Putin himself - there have been many grim pages in Russian history, but there have been at least as many such pages in other countries. And certainly the Russian ones have been not as sinister as Nazism, for example.
(...)
source: Polityka, http://www.polityka.pl/polityka/index.jsp?place=Lead33&news_cat_id=934&news_id=228548&layout=18&forum_id=11544&fpage=Threads&page=text

And so on and so on. Good article, but too long to translate it in full.

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 03:15 PM

That's right - relativism is a good tool, which leads to this:
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/875/stalinbigru4.jpg
and then to re-writing the history.

Some excerpts from a Polityka article:
source: Polityka, http://www.polityka.pl/polityka/index.jsp?place=Lead33&news_cat_id=934&news_id=228548&layout=18&forum_id=11544&fpage=Threads&page=text

And so on and so on. Good article, but too long to translate it in full.

It's not about "abashing" (is that even a word?) the past. Russia has done its share of terrible deeds, which I am perfectly fine to acknolwledge. The Katyn massacre was made by the Soviet Union, but nontheless Russians made up a great deal of the Soviet leadership, a good chunk of the NKVD soldiers who led the Poles to their death. This shouldn't be forgotten. However, my point is that so has every other country done such massacres and atrocities. No exceptions. Israel/Hamas, Russia/Poland, Iran/Iraq, they are all as guilty and rotten as each other.

The Armenians vs. Turks/Azeri's are a particular good example. Remind me, who is the guilty party there? The one that started butchering civilians left right and center while the heroic forces of the good guys saved everyone? I can't see anyone like that. Hence my relativst attitude, because to an outside observer the Russia vs. Poland thing is the same as the Armenian vs. Turks/Azeris.

All I see is hypocrites calling on one people to own up to this, or to that, when they themselves have done no better in the past. This 'blame game' has repeated itself over the course of human history, and is only ever used as a tool by the rich & powerful who have an agenda, and wish to get the ignorant, unwashed public on its side. Any intelligent person can see that this is bull****, that this is manipulation. Bad relations do not come from historical events. Bad relations come from other things (clashing economical, political, etc... interests) and historical relations are brought in to keep them bad and prevent the public from realising just how much they are being bull****ed for an agenda that is only in the interests of their elite.

Like I said, let's respect the memory of those who died. But to try and use a past event against a country that has since moved on, go to hell, and that applies to Russia, to Poland, to Germany, to Britain, to anyone who is supposed to be feeling a guilt-trip because of bad political relations with some country that leads onto accusations about a historical upset that everyone has long since moved on from.

I wonder who Russians are supposed to blame for the millions of deaths that we suffered under Stalin. Are we supposed to blame ourselves? Did we elect him?

Mamont

09-17-2007, 03:33 PM

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2415930&postcount=47

Mishka Zubov

09-17-2007, 05:06 PM

It's not about "abashing" (is that even a word?) the past. Russia has done its share of terrible deeds, which I am perfectly fine to acknolwledge. The Katyn massacre was made by the Soviet Union, but nontheless Russians made up a great deal of the Soviet leadership, a good chunk of the NKVD soldiers who led the Poles to their death. This shouldn't be forgotten. However, my point is that so has every other country done such massacres and atrocities. No exceptions. Israel/Hamas, Russia/Poland, Iran/Iraq, they are all as guilty and rotten as each other.

The Armenians vs. Turks/Azeri's are a particular good example. Remind me, who is the guilty party there? The one that started butchering civilians left right and center while the heroic forces of the good guys saved everyone? I can't see anyone like that. Hence my relativst attitude, because to an outside observer the Russia vs. Poland thing is the same as the Armenian vs. Turks/Azeris.

All I see is hypocrites calling on one people to own up to this, or to that, when they themselves have done no better in the past. This 'blame game' has repeated itself over the course of human history, and is only ever used as a tool by the rich & powerful who have an agenda, and wish to get the ignorant, unwashed public on its side. Any intelligent person can see that this is bull****, that this is manipulation. Bad relations do not come from historical events. Bad relations come from other things (clashing economical, political, etc... interests) and historical relations are brought in to keep them bad and prevent the public from realising just how much they are being bull****ed for an agenda that is only in the interests of their elite.

Like I said, let's respect the memory of those who died. But to try and use a past event against a country that has since moved on, go to hell, and that applies to Russia, to Poland, to Germany, to Britain, to anyone who is supposed to be feeling a guilt-trip because of bad political relations with some country that leads onto accusations about a historical upset that everyone has long since moved on from.

I wonder who Russians are supposed to blame for the millions of deaths that we suffered under Stalin. Are we supposed to blame ourselves? Did we elect him?

abashing
To make ashamed or uneasy; disconcert. See Synonyms at embarrass.

source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abashingI was not particularly pointing finger at you - I know you to be a reasonable person. I was talking about a state sponsored tendency to use relativism as a tool to deny the past and to create new mythology. And there are many methods for doing this - I quoted one of them before.

As you said it yourself - admitting wrongdoing is the first step to establishing reasonable relations. As someone already said it here: most people in Poland are not particularly proud of squaring the past Olza problems with Czechoslovakia in 1938. That was not fair to take advantage of the bad moment for the Czechs - to say the least. Some would still argue - citing previous Czech atrocities, etc. But there is not a state sponsored program that attempts to whitewash that event.

By the way - for your information Czech Republic is voluntarily giving back some number of hectares that she still owes Poland due to some irregularities in the process of defining borders after WW2. Not that I care a bit.

Comparing deaths of thousands of Soviet POWs in 20s - who died of typhoid and starvation, as happened to many Poles at those times, with the deaths of thousands of Polish POWs - who have been killed in Katyn and elsewhere by Stalin's design does not fly with me. Surely, the former should be properly investigated and accounted for, but those two events are not in the same class.

Propaganda manipulation is another matter:

I've been asking Russians for years what do they think about Katyn. Random travel companions, acquaintances. Those who do not know that I am a Pole, surprised by a banality of the question, answer the same: "Everyone knows that it was a terrible war crime. Typical for Germans. Nazis did the same with thousands of Belorussian villages."

They say so, because they don't hear the word "Katyn" but "Khatyn". This was a name of a Belorussian village, destroyed by a punitive expedition on March 22, 1943. A battalion of former Soviet soldiers, taken prisoner by Germans and then allowed to change sides, commanded by Grigorij Vasiura, a former lieutenant of Red Army, torched alive 149 inhabitants.

(...)

All textbooks speak about Khatyn. The name is often mentioned in newspapers, and TV programs devoted to WW2.

This is an interesting and successful propaganda procedure. Khatyn, although morally ambiguous, has been chosen as a symbol, because it is an excellent jammer. A graduate of Soviet or Russian school, a reader of newspapers, a TV viewer has been so trained that hearing the word "Katyn" he will automatically understand "Khatyn". (...)

But if he knows that his interlocutor is a Pole his reaction is different, because he knows that the "Lakh" must touch the Katyn subject sooner or later.
source: http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1,75248,4493775.html
translated by MZ

But the conclusion of your post:

I wonder who Russians are supposed to blame for the millions of deaths that we suffered under Stalin. Are we supposed to blame ourselves? Did we elect him?is a real problem. A difficult one.

No, you - and millions of modern Russians - did not elect him. And you could find plenty of reasons or people in the past to blame for Stalin's success as a dictator. And I - together with millions of Poles and the rest of the world - feel sorry for your losses. Really!

But do you understand why so many Russians suffer a communal amnesia? Why so many Russians try to whitewash his crimes and build new monuments to him, like these bottles of vodka? One possibility is a fear to face the past, to account for the past.

There are many causes of such fear. Not so long ago, on the occasion of presentation of Polish edition of his novel "Menacing Russia", I asked about it Yuriy Afanasev, a historian and one of the former leaders of old "perestroyka" opposition, who was one of the first to begin disclosing the truth about the Soviet past.

He was also the first to have courage to publicly say in the interview with "Polityka", on Spring 1987, that "the truths about Katyn must be disclosed to the very end. Notwithstanding how tragic the answer would be."

He answered my question about accountability with all brutality: "This is because of unimaginable scale of the crimes. Because if tens of millions of people had been murdered than millions of other people had to participate in it. The executioner was becoming a victim and the victim - an executioner..."
source: Polityka, http://www.polityka.pl/polityka/index.jsp?place=Lead33&news_cat_id=934&news_id=228548&layout=18&forum_id=11544&fpage=Threads&page=text

Flamming_Python

09-17-2007, 06:38 PM

I was not particularly pointing finger at you - I know you to be a reasonable person. I was talking about a state sponsored tendency to use relativism as a tool to deny the past and to create new mythology. And there are many methods for doing this - I quoted one of them before.

As you said it yourself - admitting wrongdoing is the first step to establishing reasonable relations. As someone already said it here: most people in Poland are not particularly proud of squaring the past Olza problems with Czechoslovakia in 1938. That was not fair to take advantage of the bad moment for the Czechs - to say the least. Some would still argue - citing previous Czech atrocities, etc. But there is not a state sponsored program that attempts to whitewash that event.

By the way - for your information Czech Republic is voluntarily giving back some number of hectares that she still owes Poland due to some irregularities in the process of defining borders after WW2. Not that I care a bit.

Comparing deaths of thousands of Soviet POWs in 20s - who died of typhoid and starvation, as happened to many Poles at those times, with the deaths of thousands of Polish POWs - who have been killed in Katyn and elsewhere by Stalin's design does not fly with me. Surely, the former should be properly investigated and accounted for, but those two events are not in the same class.

Propaganda manipulation is another matter:
source: http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1,75248,4493775.html
translated by MZ

But the conclusion of your post:
is a real problem. A difficult one.

No, you - and millions of modern Russians - did not elect him. And you could find plenty of reasons or people in the past to blame for Stalin's success as a dictator. And I - together with millions of Poles and the rest of the world - feel sorry for your losses. Really!

But do you understand why so many Russians suffer a communal amnesia? Why so many Russians try to whitewash his crimes and build new monuments to him, like these bottles of vodka? One possibility is a fear to face the past, to account for the past.

source: Polityka, http://www.polityka.pl/polityka/index.jsp?place=Lead33&news_cat_id=934&news_id=228548&layout=18&forum_id=11544&fpage=Threads&page=text

My friend I can see that you are an intellectual and a sharp one at that.

However you are also like me, once you pick a side you stick to it like glue. I can see that in all your posts you take sides against any of Russia's actions, just as I take my side defending Russia's actions, and therefore it will always be hard to come to a consensus on topics on which we disagree, because we already have an entrenched opinion which we have convinced ourselves on, despite drawing from the same historical sources. These opinions are based on our private thinking of the subject, and has been influenced, whether we realise it or not, by the Political views we have, by the Culture that we identify ourselves with, etc...

That is my first relativist point on this debate; that it is useless to debate what country's historical sources we have used, what Propaganda we have listened to, etc... because the fact is that given the same historical sources, the same points of view, we are always going to come to different conclusions. As to why this is, I spent a lot of time thinking about it, but I still have nothing but a lot of different dis-organised ideas & theories floating around in my head, certainly nothing I can put down on paper. Something to do with how we grow up, how our political consiousness develops and how closely we can relate our own views to the views expressed in different strata of society & politics.

Your point on the typhoid & starvation deaths of the Soviet POW's... Well I'm glad you pointed it out, because it leads me onto my secound relativist point; it's all a matter of perception. You play down its significance because Polish soldiers suffered the same. Russians play down the significance of Katyn because Russians suffered the same, and indeed when you enter a Russian kitchen for a nice political discussion on this very topic, you will notice that while people symphathise with your position and agree that it was an abhorant atrocity, their cynical nature will compel them to point out it is likely being used by politicians, which makes taking sides or supporting the positions of rival governments a pointless excersise.

It will also be frowned upon to start looking at the case of these Polish deaths too much. There were millions of deaths in WW2 as a result of all sides, and while many Polish officers and intelligencia were executed by Stalin, he executed even more Ukrainians, Russian officers and intelligencia for the same reason; in that he was waging a class-war, and the idea of nationalities didn't matter to him a great deal. By focussing on the Polish deaths, it would create an impression that only the Poles suffered, and that somehow they were singled out more than others, an assertation which would quite frankly insult many Russians.

As to whether Stalin should be brought out in the open or forgotten about? Leave that to Russian society. The state has no bearing on it, and even if it were trying to defend Stalin's policies (which it isn't to my knowledge), it would likely have very little effect on the opinions being formulated by Russians on Stalin.

It is a great misconception that Russian points of view are drawn from Putin's policies. It is in fact the other way around, the current government largely reflects (although not always) the views & greiviences of many Russians, which in their current form have been around since at least the 90's. Foreign thinkers, meanwhile, are quite happy to assume that the reason why Putin has such high approval ratings in Russia, is because he brainwashed the whole Russian society :D

As for Stalin. Well the point is not that people like him, is that they just don't care. Continuing from before, the cynisism of the people at large very quickly transformed into political apathy for the younger generation. Soviet Nostalgia hit the nation a few years ago, and things like this have probably been selling like hotcakes. The East Germans went through the same thing a few years back; and probably it took root because even though, like many Russians, they didn't have any special bitterness for what the USSR or Socialist East Germany represented in terms of ideology, they just didn't believe in it any more, they needed a new way of doing things. It would be very funny is a similar wave hit Poland :)

There is a certain amount of respect reserved for Stalin however. For all his mass-murdering tendencies, he did win the War, and many believe that no-one else could have done it but him. So for that reason there is a strata of society that believes in him (mostly the older generation and those living in the distant rural areas), and puts up statues, makes vodka bottles, or whatever. But what has this got to do with the Russian Government, or the Majority of Russian People?

Mishka Zubov

09-17-2007, 07:55 PM

I ****ounce a stalemate of this discussion - otherwise we could continue with it for ages. :-)

Few minor points though:

By no means I ever exaggerate the Polish side of Stalin's atrocities. I am acutely aware of the estimates of the Russian/Ukrainian victims - dozen of millions perhaps? I have never implied that Polish losses were greater than that. That was a cheap shot on your part. :-(

I am also aware of the role the propaganda plays in politics. I have been brought in the world ruled by all sorts of propaganda - including the Western one. And I have an ability to sense minute particles of it miles away. But I have a little theory of my own, which I call "Failing to adjust the size of pores in ones personal anti-propaganda filter." This means that no matter how hard you try to protect yourself against propaganda you will always fail - your filter is not good enough, and only the outsiders may be able to point it out to you.

I am such an external observer of things happening in Poland and Russia now. It's easier for me to notice how their propaganda works - in both cases. I have seen many posts on this forum that prove my point with high clarity. And I may state with high certainty that Russian propaganda works better than you would like to admit.

Katyn plays a big role in domestic Kaczynskis' politics, but lesser than you would like to attribute it to him. After all, in his today's visit to Katyn he was trying to convey the same message as yours:

"The Soviet Union no longer exists. We have a new Russia. We should live for the future and consider the past with calm and wisdom, but also with respect for the truth," Kaczynski said, according to Polish news agency PAP.
"Today we should pay respect, we should preserve their memory. Historical memory, of what is good and of what is bad, is important. But this does not mean we want to feed only on this memory," he said.
source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jI8_K-Q7cMbUc5OOU8Z-i6_egEHw

I do not know what is it about Poles - as opposed to Russians - that they mourn for so long. After all both nations have been denied a right to grieve openly for dozen of years. Maybe Russians are more forward looking than Poles?

But that's another topic for discussion for which I have found an excellent external opinion. :-)

CPL Trevoga

09-17-2007, 08:28 PM

Just to bring it up today.

Whole story*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

"Aniversary Of Soviet Russians" <-- that's flamebait right there Herr. There were Soviet Ukranians, Belarussians and so forth.

To me it's a great anniversary of liberation of Western Belarus from Polish occupation and suppression of Belorussian culture by Polish oppressors.

Herrmannek

09-17-2007, 08:46 PM

Mishka Zubov

09-17-2007, 09:41 PM

"Aniversary Of Soviet Russians" <-- that's flamebait right there Herr. There were Soviet Ukranians, Belarussians and so forth.

To me it's a great anniversary of liberation of Western Belarus from Polish occupation and suppression of Belorussian culture by Polish oppressors.

Belarussian culture - no longer being supressed by Polish opressors - evidently flourishes. I would like to see some newer statistics. Anyone?

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1664/belorussianlangys4.png
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1431/belorussianpapermi5.png

source: http://www.coactivity.vgtu.lt/upload/filosof_zurn/g_gribov_o_popko_filosofija_nr_1_t15.pdf
LANGUAGE PROBLEM IN THE BELORUSSIAN HISTORY
Georgij M. Gribov, Olga N. Popko
Dept of Philosophy and Cultural Theory, BrestStateTechnicalUniversity, Belarus
E-mail: olze@list.ru

Switek

09-18-2007, 02:10 AM

To me it's a great anniversary of liberation of Western Belarus from Polish occupation and suppression of Belorussian culture by Polish oppressors.

Do you still read "Pravda"? :roll:

You made my day http://www.nfow.pl/images/smiles/smichnasali.gif

Mamont

09-18-2007, 05:46 AM

Do you still read "Pravda"? :roll:
You are getting too simple, Switek. It seems you have short memory of SU-Polish wars and political relations between 1917-1939.. Anyway i think Stalin had a good satisfaction for Riga peace treaty. There is no need for exessive dramatisation and victimization stance as polish goverment was the first to bring such day to existance.

Switek

09-18-2007, 06:12 AM

No I'm not... I know this part of history quite well ... USSR had broken more than 20 treaties signed between SU and Poland and with no single legal basis attacked Poland. Soviet Union fulfiled, that way, agreement with its ally: 3rd Reich. Facts are hard. You can find and produce thousands of explanations and justifications, I don't care. Most Russians are really immune for any argument.

An interesting map published in "Izwiestja" newspaper on Sept. 18th. 1939.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Mapa_Paktu_R_M_Izwiestia-18.09.1939.jpg/671px-Mapa_Paktu_R_M_Izwiestia-18.09.1939.jpg

Mamont

09-18-2007, 06:22 AM

No I'm not... I know this part of history quite well ... USSR had broken more than 20 treaties signed between SU and Poland and with no single legal basis attacked Poland. Gees. Broke? Learn your own history, than teach others. Polish goverment collapsed and fleeing the country, it was about 8 hours before its crossing of romanian border when SU entered Poland.. If Stalin didn't interfere, Hitler would took whole Poland. I guess that was more desirable outcome for you and the likes..

PrivateBunny

09-18-2007, 06:27 AM

Funny,but you can say "thanks" for the Katyn massacre to one Pole.
Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky - remember him? He was a founder of NKVD.
Also say "thanks" to Joseph Stalin - he from Caucasus, typical representative of "occupied" georgian nation.

Herrmannek

09-18-2007, 07:12 AM

Dzierżyński was traitor, in this light his Polish roots have no meaning.

Flamming_Python

09-18-2007, 07:16 AM

Dzierżyński was traitor, in this light his Polish roots have no meaning.

No you can't say that. That way someone can heap onto Russia the likes of Stalin, Beria, etc... simply by ****ouncing them traitors and under Russian control. Just because your current government dis-owns the man, doesn't take away the fact that he is Polish. If the current Russian government disowned Lenin for example, it still wouldn't make him any less Russian.

I think what you are really afraid of admitting is that the Bolsheviks were an internationalist movement that included among them all sorts; Russians, Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Latvians (yes even Latvians), Georgians, etc... which together comprised the leadership of the Soviet Union.

Herrmannek

09-18-2007, 07:27 AM

Switek

09-18-2007, 07:44 AM

Gees. Broke? Learn your own history, than teach others. Polish goverment collapsed and fleeing the country, it was about 8 hours before its crossing of romanian border when SU entered Poland.. If Stalin didn't interfere, Hitler would took whole Poland. I guess that was more desirable outcome for you and the likes..

Soviet invasion of Poland begun between 3.00-5.00 a.m. Polish president and government left to Romania in the evening of the same day 17th. Sept. 1939, becouse of this invasion. What doesn't change the fact that our government was active and was recognized by Soviet Union.

Soviet agression was a criminal act the same like German one., whether you like it or not. Soviets became this samie kind of cruel occupants like Nazis. Hard facts.

Mamont

09-18-2007, 07:52 AM

Soviet invasion of Poland begun between 3.00-5.00 a.m. Polish president and government left to Romania in the evening of the same day 17th. Sept. 1939, becouse of this invasion. What doesn't change the fact that our government was active and was recognized by Soviet Union. Switek, you really amusing me. Let me reapeat a bit of history to you: "1 september Germany invaded Poland, 1 september polish president left capital, 5 september - members of goverment, Rydz-Smigly left capital at 7 september, than at 10 september he started to move towards Romania and cross border at 16 september(about 100 km per day by the way, impressive result considering situation). Talks with France about transit of polish goverment were 9-11 september, with Romania - 16 september. Polish goverment crossed romanian border at night 17 september, 19 they were interned." Your goverment left your country for it's destiny. It abandoned it's people before soviet invasion. It had no power and no authority. As i've already said - learn your own history, than teach others.

Soviet agression was a criminal act the same like German one., whether you like it or not. Soviets became this samie kind of cruel occupants like Nazis. Hard facts. Oh lord..

PrivateBunny

09-18-2007, 07:59 AM

Dzier?y?ski was traitor, in this light his Polish roots have no meaning.

Traitor? From you point of view - maybe. But you so easy reject your compatriot. He was a catholic and product of Polish society for that time.
Ha-ha - it's a secret of Polish commercial success: skip bad things and accept good :] Like you did with events of 1938 and 1939.
You don't accept responsibility for this man, then, in this light we can't accept responsibility for Katyn.
Too much bloodiest events between our nations - remember it, but if you want to break vicious circle - there is point for us to stop blame each other.

Herrmannek

09-18-2007, 08:37 AM

Traitor? From you point of view - maybe. But you so easy reject your compatriot. He was a catholic and product of Polish society for that time.

Ha-ha - it's a secret of Polish commercial success: skip bad things and accept good :] Like you did with events of 1938 and 1939.

You don't accept responsibility for this man, then, in this light we can't accept responsibility for Katyn.
Too much bloodiest events between our nations - remember it, but if you want to break vicious circle - there is point for us to stop blame each other.
What a bunch of demagogy. Do you ever know what traitor means? You actually need to be part of something to betray it. We hang traitors on trees. Instead of accusing us for wrong doing you should rather regret we never had a chance to have rope, branch, and Dzierżynski in same place and same time...

1938 is incomparable to Katyn and Soviet occupation. And ask Czechs if we didn't apologized for that multiple times. Even on this forum you can find lots of discussions on the topic and common conclusions. We can understand land claims, rematch, but if you start killing officers, inteligence, make mass deportations and so on, together with Nazi Germans doing the same things on the other side of the doted line all similarities END...

You could swing this that way, if you wouldn't be consider accomplice.. Stop hiding documents and protecting still living executioners and commanding officers, until this happen you can't go this way...

You let the truth out we can stop blaming each other. You don't reconcile until all past resentments are cleared or at least explained.

PrivateBunny

09-18-2007, 09:07 AM

1. you post "Soviet Russian" - and run thread in national-colored thematics.
2. You wanna to accept some things and events but don't accept others, however this links of one chain.

The truth: Katyn massacre - a war crime, commited by Head of communist party and NKVD by political reasons. By same reasons killed Czar family, and commited "cleanings ammong" officers of Red Army. In this crime no place for russian-polish hate or love habbits.

You can continue blame us, we will continue blame you. In history enough facts to use agains each other.

ursus

09-18-2007, 10:32 AM

Where was Putin while the Katyn comemoration ceremonies took place? He was invited.

Switek

09-18-2007, 10:46 AM

ursus, we are wasting our time here. Some guys knew, know and will know our history better...

Anyway an interesting article:

President Kaczynski visits site of Katyn massacre
Warsaw, Poland September 18, 2007

Polish President Lech Kaczynski made his first official visit to Russia on Monday to commemorate the murder of 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals by the Soviet secret police in 1940.

The incident is known as the Katyn massacre and a movie is being made about it by renowned Polish director Andrzej Wajda.

Kaczynski, accompanied by relatives of the victims of the massacre, laid a wreath and lit candles in the spot where Polish officers, soldiers and civilians, who were taken prisoner by the Red Army in 1939, were executed in the Katyn forest, in the Smolensk province near Russia's western border.

Russia has long maintained a stance that no massacre ever took place and has denied access to archival documents for Polish researchers.

Kaczynski, however, was somewhat conciliatory while maintaining Poland's stance that it wants the truth to be known.

Kaczynski said, "The Soviet Union no longer exists. We have a new Russia. We should live for the future and consider the past with calm and wisdom, but also with respect for the truth."

"Today we should pay respect, we should preserve their memory. Historical memory, of what is good and of what is bad, is important. But this does not mean we want to feed only on this memory," President Kaczynski added.

Commentators in both Poland and Russia said Kaczynski's visit was partly aimed at rallying Polish voters ahead of Parliamentary elections on October 21st.

Kaczynski said the order came from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin which was carried out by the NKVD secret police. He termed it "an act of genocide."

The Katyn massacre looms large in the memory of Poles as a crime which annihilated an elite group of pre-war Poland's male population, thus depriving the country of strong leaders able to defend the country.

The Warsaw Voice (http://www.warsawvoice.pl)

daily666

09-18-2007, 11:51 AM

^^^ That was preety reasonable, especially for him.

The Russians here should understand that the 17th of September anniversary is such an important date for Poles these days, because for 50 years we were banned to mention it.

It was an invasion that's a fact, and saying that it was a liberation of Belarussians form Polish rule is like saying thar Iraq invasion was a liberation from Saddams rule. Pure crap.

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 12:22 PM

No you can't say that. That way someone can heap onto Russia the likes of Stalin, Beria, etc... simply by ****ouncing them traitors and under Russian control. Just because your current government dis-owns the man, doesn't take away the fact that he is Polish. If the current Russian government disowned Lenin for example, it still wouldn't make him any less Russian.

I think what you are really afraid of admitting is that the Bolsheviks were an internationalist movement that included among them all sorts; Russians, Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Latvians (yes even Latvians), Georgians, etc... which together comprised the leadership of the Soviet Union.

Frankly, I do not understand your logic here. No one denies and no Pole has ever denied that he was a native Pole. See for example the Polish wikipedia entry, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Dzier%C5%BCy%C5%84ski, which talks in more details about his Polish roots than its English counterpart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Edmundovich_Dzerzhinsky.

And you do not need a government of any sort to declare somebody a traitor. In view of millions of Poles - both, his contemporaries and modern ones - he was a scum, a murderer and a traitor. He was and is being hated - not particularly for his political affiliation with Bolshevik movement, but for his engagement with the most ruthless murderous organization ever established.

In times of Communist rule the citizens had to endure his monuments, and squares and streets named after him. So what? They are gone now. The President Wilson Square in Warsaw bears again its prewar name, and the prewar Półwiejska in Poznań is again Półwiejska. And funny thing about the latter: during the Communist times the older citizen of Poznań rarely referred to it as Dzierżyński Street - only when they had to correct the younger generation, point out their 'faux pais'.

Which is not to say about some Russians and Belarusians - they are apparently quite proud of him, considering the fact that some towns and streets over there still bear his name.

PrivateBunny said

(...)
Ha-ha - it's a secret of Polish commercial success: skip bad things and accept good :]
(...)
No one claims that Poland was or is a land of angels - all encompassing 100% percent angels. Poland had and still has its share of scum and criminals. So has any other country of the world.

Your logic is really screwed here. Why should not I be proud of accomplishments and heroes and - at the same time - hate the scum originated from my native land?

Mamont

09-18-2007, 12:52 PM

Where was Putin while the Katyn comemoration ceremonies took place? He was invited. Hm, why you asking this here? Take a trip to Moscow and ask him directly. Anyway, how come Putin and Katyn emerged here? Is this some kind of gestalt, implanted by media in the minds of polish people?

I understand the reason to view results of collapse of Poland, but i see no will or interest from polish members to even mention what chain of events brought the fall. It's always onlly big evil Russia(not even Soviet Union) with a slight flavor of Nazi Germany that tore apart poor innocent and unsuspecting Poland.. What went wrong in the way of thinking about it?

PrivateBunny

09-18-2007, 12:59 PM

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 01:03 PM

Switek, you really amusing me. Let me reapeat a bit of history to you: "1 september Germany invaded Poland, 1 september polish president left capital, 5 september - members of goverment, Rydz-Smigly left capital at 7 september, than at 10 september he started to move towards Romania and cross border at 16 september(about 100 km per day by the way, impressive result considering situation). Talks with France about transit of polish goverment were 9-11 september, with Romania - 16 september. Polish goverment crossed romanian border at night 17 september, 19 they were interned." Your goverment left your country for it's destiny. It abandoned it's people before soviet invasion. It had no power and no authority. As i've already said - learn your own history, than teach others.

Oh lord..

This is a good example of using technicalities for justification of events which were expedient for Russians, but morally unacceptable for everybody else.

Wacław Grzybowski, Ambassador of Polish Republic to Soviet Union, had this to say to Vladimir Potiomkin, a deputy Peoples' Comissar of Foreign Affairs - after hearing the diplomatic note read by Potiomkin:

None of the arguments, used in this note, for justification of converting the Polish-Soviet pacts into some slips of paper resist any critique. According to my information the Head of State and the Government remain in Polish territory. The state sovereignty exists for so long as the soldiers of regular army fight. Whatever the note says about national minorities is nonsense.

You had talked many times in our conversations about Slavic solidarity. Where is your Slavic solidarity now? During the First World War the territories of Belgium and Serbia have been occuppied, yet no one has ever considered that mutual obligations towards them were no longer valid.

Napoleon entered Moscow but as long as Kutuzov Army existed it was thought that Russia also existed. Warsaw is defending itself, Polish state exists."
Grzybowski refused to accept the note.
source: http://www.redakcjawojskowa.pl/gazeta/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7874&Itemid=27
translated by MZ

seer

09-18-2007, 01:15 PM

Not so simply. From one point of view CheKa/NKVD/KGB was a secret police and tool used for murderings and repressions. From other - there was a people who was a patriots and died for our country. And first hard to divide from second. Same question: - General Yaruzelski - war hero or criminal?
That reason why streets in Russia, Belorussia and other countries not renamed - it's our history.

So what you are basically saying is that from 'one point of view' the CheKa/NKVD/KGB crimes against humanity are justified and the victims must have done something (presumably against the motherland) to deserve their faith. ... hmmm Interesting.

PS. Now we know that Jaruzelski is a criminal.

Mamont

09-18-2007, 01:17 PM

This is a good example of using technicalities for justification of events which were expedient for Russians, but morally unacceptable for everybody else. Are you serious? What morality has to do with politics? Especially at that period, when almost everybody planned something against each other and when the opportunity arises to grab something - they went for it? Morality is the last and most useless argument when speaking about politics..

daily666

09-18-2007, 01:20 PM

Not so simply. From one point of view CheKa/NKVD/KGB was a secret police and tool used for murderings and repressions. From other - there was a people who was a patriots and died for our country. And first hard to divide from second. Same question: - General Yaruzelski - war hero or criminal?
That reason why streets in Russia, Belorussia and other countries not renamed - it's our history.

Goebbels, Goering, Hitler, Himmler are all part of German history. None of these names remain on German streets. The analogy goes on. The Gestapo was a secret police used for murderings and repressions, same with SS and SA (earlier). Not many Germans would defend their actions like some Russians are defending CheKa/NKVD/KGB.

seer

09-18-2007, 01:29 PM

Where was Putin while the Katyn comemoration ceremonies took place? He was invited.

Probably handing out refrigerators to the newly impregnated russian girls. p-)

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 01:44 PM

Are you serious? What morality has to do with politics? Especially at that period, when almost everybody planned something against each other and when the opportunity arises to grab something - they went for it? Morality is the last and most useless argument when speaking about politics..

Yes, I am serious. Great Britain considered it a moral obligation to come with the aid to Belgium. They had been also dragged into the WW2 - even though they were not ready for war - because their sense of fair play.

Maybe I am a bit naive, but it looks like many people share my views. Just Google "morality and politics". The very first example starts with this:

A nation's political trends are governed by several factors--the state of the economy, the vested interests of politicians and bureaucrats, the attitudes of the media, and many others. But the fundamental factor is moral: the beliefs people have about right and wrong, good and bad; their aspirations for their lives; the virtues they practice and vices they denounce; the responsibilities and obligations they accept; the things they feel entitled to; the standards that govern their sense of fair play; the ideals that shape their sense of what is worthy.
source: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--211-Morality_Politics.aspx

Flamming_Python

09-18-2007, 02:11 PM

Frankly, I do not understand your logic here. No one denies and no Pole has ever denied that he was a native Pole. See for example the Polish wikipedia entry, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Dzier%C5%BCy%C5%84ski, which talks in more details about his Polish roots than its English counterpart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Edmundovich_Dzerzhinsky.

And you do not need a government of any sort to declare somebody a traitor. In view of millions of Poles - both, his contemporaries and modern ones - he was a scum, a murderer and a traitor. He was and is being hated - not particularly for his political affiliation with Bolshevik movement, but for his engagement with the most ruthless murderous organization ever established.

In times of Communist rule the citizens had to endure his monuments, and squares and streets named after him. So what? They are gone now. The President Wilson Square in Warsaw bears again its prewar name, and the prewar Pó?wiejska in Pozna? is again Pó?wiejska. And funny thing about the latter: during the Communist times the older citizen of Pozna? rarely referred to it as Dzier?y?ski Street - only when they had to correct the younger generation, point out their 'faux pais'.

Which is not to say about some Russians and Belarusians - they are apparently quite proud of him, considering the fact that some towns and streets over there still bear his name.

Well I can't speak nor can I claim to speak for all Russians and Belorussians, but on my part i'm not proud of anyone who had anything to do with the secret police. I don't think any educated Russians are either in particular. In Russia you can find people who love Hitler even, and i'm sure that you have such idiots in your country as you have in every country, but it makes no sence to focus on them.

As for the declaring traitor, etc... Well whatever, it's again a matter of perception. Many Russians viewed and still view the Bolsheviks as traitors as they overthrew Kazinsky's government, or because they executed the Tsar. Many Russians regard the USSR as an illegitimate regime that brought ruin to their country, much in the same way as the Poles see their own Socialist government as illegitimate. And likewise, there are plenty of people in Russia that prefer to focus on the good the USSR did for their country, and regard the revolution and the Tsar's execution as neccessery in order to stop counter-productive forces. In Poland this strata of society is no doubt smaller, but i'm sure it exists.

I think of pluralism of opinions as a good thing for society. It helps balance viewpoints out and prevents too much white-washing and demonising. I am someone with strong Socialist symphathies, but I don't associate my views with the USSR as I don't view it as a Socialist society, rather a Nation State that had good sides and bad sides to it. Modern day Russia, I believe doesn't draw too heavily into the Imperial or the Soviet period, into Left or Right politics, indeed if it tried it would create too much of a fracture in Society, and we could end up with a situation similar to what is now unfolding in the Ukraine. Which is probably why you don't get too much Russian Government glorification or demonisation of the USSR, it's better to just leave it to society.

Flamming_Python

09-18-2007, 02:23 PM

One more thing... For anyone who can understand Russian, here is Putin commentating on the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty on the behalf of an Estonian journalist who brought up 'that' question :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/DFYfOfowEHk

Where was Putin while the Katyn comemoration ceremonies took place? He was invited.

Why didn't Kazcinsky come to Moscow?

Mamont

09-18-2007, 02:24 PM

Yes, I am serious. Great Britain considered it a moral obligation to come with the aid to Belgium. They had been also dragged into the WW2 - even though they were not ready for war - because their sense of fair play. I don't know from where to start to not to ruin your dreams of british political nobility too cruelly and suddenly. Probably to not go too far from the topic you could start from Spanish civil war.. Then go straight for the plans about french colonies, than to works of Kitchen M., Padfield P. and so on and on.. Not to forget Churchill of course.

Maybe I am a bit naive, but it looks like many people share my views. Sorry, but this is just a way to escape reality. And no - Santa does not exist too despite many people beliefs. Sorry again.

Switek

09-18-2007, 02:43 PM

Flamming_Python

09-18-2007, 02:57 PM

The most funny thing is that our dear Russian friends who claim to be members of new free world and new Russia frperfectly defend stalinist propaganda lies invented 68 years ago. What a posthumous victory of comrade Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. He must be proud of some of you. rofl.

Whatever. I am simply trying to look at things from both angles.

I am sure that in 100 years time all the history books will have information about how much propaganda there was in the early 21st century on all sides, just like history books now try to paint a picture of how much propaganda there was on all sides in WW1, in the Cold War, etc...

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 03:03 PM

I don't know from where to start to not to ruin your dreams of british political nobility too cruelly and suddenly. Probably to not go too far from the topic you could start from Spanish civil war.. Then go straight for the plans about french colonies, than to works of Kitchen M., Padfield P. and so on and on.. Not to forget Churchill of course.

Sorry, but this is just a way to escape reality. And no - Santa does not exist too despite many people beliefs. Sorry again.

What can I say - I understand more than you are crediting me for about British colonial politics. No need for patronizing, Sir. But I stand my ground on national moral values as being one of the driving forces in politics.

This is your choice to reject those. And I am glad that we do not play in the same team.

PrivateBunny

09-18-2007, 03:36 PM

Goebbels, Goering, Hitler, Himmler are all part of German history. None of these names remain on German streets. The analogy goes on. The Gestapo was a secret police used for murderings and repressions, same with SS and SA (earlier). Not many Germans would defend their actions like some Russians are defending CheKa/NKVD/KGB.

Not many Russians defend cruel actions of NKVD or Katyn Massacre. Each average russian family have a member who was in prison or died during Stalins rule.
In Russia no streets named for Beria, Ezhov or Stalin. No new streets have names of Lenin and other communist. Dzerzhinskiy statue was removed from Lubyanka square in 1991. Although NKVD have jail guard duty and political pursuit role, where was a much shame things and crimes, there also was a peoples who fight with enemy, do real contr-espionage job and conducted special operations on enemy territory. Some about Dzerzhinskiy - he was a revolutioner and idealist, other his succecors where much worse and not so principial. And he use same methods as his political enemies - terror and opressions. Nazi leaders where justified by Nurnberg tribunal, no legitimate court justified Dzerzhinskiy or even Joseph Stalin.

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 03:49 PM

Let me be the first! Me! me!

Nazi leaders where justified by Nurnberg tribunal, no legitimate court justified Dzerzhinskiy or even Joseph Stalin.That's so funny! This thread needs some humor.

I understand that you meant something else than "justified"?

Assuming that you meant "judged", "charged", "put on trial", "convicted", or any such word - who suppose to come forward with such initiative? Just give us one scenario. :-)

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 03:57 PM

There is more humor around. Check this:
http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=120341

Mamont

09-18-2007, 03:59 PM

What can I say - I understand more than you are crediting me for about British colonial politics. I was pointing you not only to colonial politics, but on general.

No need for patronizing, Sir. But I stand my ground on national moral values as being one of the driving forces in politics.I believe you're mistaking moral values and actions to preserve those and probably domestic politics with foreign. For example situation with Iraq now. In borders of our discussion: with Spain back then, with war reparations in 1932, "pacification program" for Germany, english-german sea treaty from 1935 and so on... High words does not cover or change deeds.

This is your choice to reject those. And I am glad that we do not play in the same team. Oh, "it's us or them" mentality again, how boring. This is what drags you down - the necessity to choose teams instead of independent thinking...

Mishka Zubov

09-18-2007, 04:09 PM

I meant - my team. Sorry, I set the rules, you wouldn't be accepted. And I am a fiercely independent thinker, thank you :-)

CPL Trevoga

09-18-2007, 07:15 PM

Do you still read "Pravda"? :roll:

You made my day http://www.nfow.pl/images/smiles/smichnasali.gif

I posted obvious bullsh*t, because Herr here posts obvious Kachinski's propaganda bull****. I'm a simple Russian peasant, why a simple Polish peasant feels that he needs to posts anti-Russian crap, that blames all Russians for war crimes? Why does he feels that we Russians responsible for such crimes? We Christian too brother, "thou shalt not murder" is our commandment as well. It's like I would blame you, for Polish occupation of Moscow in 16th century.

Kap2406

09-18-2007, 09:00 PM

ursus

09-19-2007, 08:44 AM

Herrmannek

09-19-2007, 09:33 AM

I posted obvious bullsh*t, because Herr here posts obvious Kachinski's propaganda bull****. I'm a simple Russian peasant, why a simple Polish peasant feels that he needs to posts anti-Russian crap, that blames all Russians for war crimes? Why does he feels that we Russians responsible for such crimes? We Christian too brother, "thou shalt not murder" is our commandment as well. It's like I would blame you, for Polish occupation of Moscow in 16th century.

Actually only thing I expect from Russia is to give us access to soviet documents as you promised(Yeltsin) and to let us bring in front of international tribunal people who can be charged with war crime or crime against humanity. Thats all... Ask your scientists if they were allowed to freely inspect deaths of Polish-Soviet war prisoners and what the findings were. From historical perspective this is all we want. Admitting to facts...

As for Polish occupation of Moscow. We are pretty damn proud of it when it comes to this military achievement, but if you want blame it on us let it be. Just stick to the facts doing so...

Switek

09-19-2007, 03:50 PM

Because some nations either do not need world's attention, or accomplish something, in order to get it. And then, there are countries, that like to present themselves as victims on a constant basis, trying to get that attention.

What a crap... taken directly from Putin's propagandists mouths. Congratulations for your deeply independent thoughts you share with us. The same was said about Estonia and Georgia this year. Don't you have much more fresh propaganda ammo... ? rofl

Kap2406

09-19-2007, 04:44 PM

What a crap... taken directly from Putin's propagandists mouths. Congratulations for your deeply independent thoughts you share with us. The same was said about Estonia and Georgia this year. Don't you have much more fresh propaganda ammo... ? rofl
Truth hurts, doesn't it?p-)
My opinion is purely based on the responses by members on this forum, and the news that are constanly coming out of "free Europe".
P.S. As much you want to believe it, Putin neither controls nor affects my opinion.

Switek

09-19-2007, 05:17 PM

Truth hurts, doesn't it?p-)
My opinion is purely based on the responses by members on this forum, and the news that are constanly coming out of "free Europe".
P.S. As much you want to believe it, Putin neither controls nor affects my opinion.

What the truth, mate? p-). I didn't mention Putin himself- read again my post.

Kap2406

09-19-2007, 05:25 PM

... I didn't mention Putin himself- read again my post.
Potato-Potahto

Switek

09-19-2007, 05:33 PM

Potato-Potahto

What a childishness.... rofl

No arguments: shout your mouth up. :-D

Kap2406

09-19-2007, 06:05 PM

What a childishness.... rofl

No arguments: shout your mouth up. :-D
Just a few examples over the last years:
1. 60th anniversary of liberation of Warsaw. Poland: Evil Soviet Union did not help us liberate Warsaw when we expected, but did it at their own convinience.
2. Russia: We will start selling our natural resources based on their true market value. Certain nations: Oh, noos, we are trying to build freedom and democracy, but evil Russians are interfering with their evil gas prices.
3. Polish meat ban issues.
4. Georgean screen plays.
5. Polish complains over lack of votes in EU.
6. And now this topic.

As a conclusion: Собака лает, караван идёт:)

Switek

09-19-2007, 06:10 PM

Kap2406

09-19-2007, 06:34 PM

Look again at the the thread title:

"Aniversary Of Soviet Russians and Nazi Germans joining efforts to destroy Poland"

Shut up kid and go to bed. :bash:

I rest my case:)

Mishka Zubov

09-19-2007, 06:58 PM

Just a few examples over the last years:
1. 60th anniversary of liberation of Warsaw. Poland: Evil Soviet Union did not help us liberate Warsaw when we expected, but did it at their own convinience.
2. Russia: We will start selling our natural resources based on their true market value. Certain nations: Oh, noos, we are trying to build freedom and democracy, but evil Russians are interfering with their evil gas prices.
3. Polish meat ban issues.
4. Georgean screen plays.
5. Polish complains over lack of votes in EU.
6. And now this topic.

As a conclusion: Собака лает, караван идёт:)

Oh, you have created a list of taboo topics! Let me help you. These are the days that may harm you - they are all apparently anti-Russian. Let me start with a partial list of Polish public and national holidays:

7. March 13, World's Day of Remembrance of Katyn Massacre Victims
8. May 3, 1791 Polish Constitution Day
9. June 28, Day of Remembrance of the Poznań June 1956 events
10. August 15, Polish Army Day, celebrating battle of Warsaw in 1920
11. August 31, Day of Solidarity and Freedom (August 1980 Agreements)
12. November 11, Independence Day

And then there are all sorts of anniversaries, although not exactly holidays. But stupid Poles still bring flowers to all sorts of monuments and cemeteries to commemorate those that have died for one cause or another - November 1830 Uprising, Battle of Tobruk, Battle of Narvik, Monte Cassino, etc.

And although most of those anniversaries have nothing to do with the Great Russia itself - who knows, what kind of anti-Russian agenda these individuals may harbor in their hearts.

Собака лает, караван идёт[Dogs bark, a caravan continues]

Exactly! So why are you here, barking?

CPL Trevoga

09-19-2007, 08:41 PM

Actually only thing I expect from Russia is to give us access to soviet documents as you promised(Yeltsin) and to let us bring in front of international tribunal people who can be charged with war crime or crime against humanity. Thats all... Ask your scientists if they were allowed to freely inspect deaths of Polish-Soviet war prisoners and what the findings were. From historical perspective this is all we want. Admitting to facts...

As for Polish occupation of Moscow. We are pretty damn proud of it when it comes to this military achievement, but if you want blame it on us let it be. Just stick to the facts doing so...

I think those are reasonable demands, so stop acting "stupid" with posts about "Soviet Russians" and sh*t. If you were from Texas, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference between Russia and USSR, but since you're from Poland stop acting like a fool. Murder of Polish officers was a serious crime, people like you are making political circus out of it. Even Kachinski said that Russia is not responsible for Stalin's crime.

http://www.izvestia.ru/world/article3108454/

As for Polish occupation of Moscow. We are pretty damn proud of it when it comes to this military achievement, but if you want blame it on us let it be. Just stick to the facts doing so...

Yeah ok, while we were fighting infidels, we got back stabbed by fellow Christians. Thats a great achievement.

Lokos

09-19-2007, 11:07 PM

As for Polish occupation of Moscow. We are pretty damn proud of it when it comes to this military achievement, but if you want blame it on us let it be. Just stick to the facts doing so...

I don't want to rain on the parade, my Polish friend, but your noble ancestors had far greater feats of valour to be proud of. Sixteenth century Muscovy wasn't even a European top twenty power... The Commonwealth, however, certainly was.

Lokos

Herrmannek

09-20-2007, 08:02 AM

I think those are reasonable demands, so stop acting "stupid" with posts about "Soviet Russians" and sh*t. If you were from Texas, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference between Russia and USSR, but since you're from Poland stop acting like a fool. Murder of Polish officers was a serious crime, people like you are making political circus out of it. Even Kachinski said that Russia is not responsible for Stalin's crime.

http://www.izvestia.ru/world/article3108454/

Yeah ok, while we were fighting infidels, we got back stabbed by fellow Christians. Thats a great achievement.

What Circus? Commemorating and investigating still open historical events is not a circus. Are Americans looking for every bit of bone on their battlefields clowns? We didn't have full 60 years to close this matters. We started closing them just recently and meet with resistance. We can tell difference between CCCP and Russia. But who cares about nomenclature while Russia still protects CCCP scums? Don't really know what your newspapers are printing...Polish demands never was different than what I wrote above. Kaczynski didn't change his stance in that matter either.

As for fending off infidels. I think there is not much left to blame... We kick out random infidels on numerous times :)

@Lokos
Still counts :)

Mamont

09-20-2007, 09:43 AM

What Circus? Commemorating and investigating still open historical events is not a circus.
Hm, the name of the thread certainly did't fit in this category. Why you didn't use a name like "Fall of Poland"?

Are Americans looking for every bit of bone on their battlefields clowns? I don't see constant japan bashing from the US members over past deeds.

We didn't have full 60 years to close this matters. We started closing them just recently and meet with resistance. You've had 20 years. With increasing numbers of archives that are open each year. What's the problem? Impatient? Or you think that those documents must be presented to Poland on a plate with a red tape?

We can tell difference between CCCP and Russia.Yet you display none. Constantly.

But who cares about nomenclature while Russia still protects CCCP scums?You don't know anything about those people yet you call them scums. Exellent choice of actions.

Herrmannek

09-20-2007, 10:26 AM

Hm, the name of the thread certainly did't fit in this category. Why you didn't use a name like "Fall of Poland"?

I don't see constant japan bashing from the US members over past deeds.

You've had 20 years. With increasing numbers of archives that are open each year. What's the problem? Impatient? Or you think that those documents must be presented to Poland on a plate with a red tape?

Yet you display none. Constantly.

You don't know anything about those people yet you call them scums. Exellent choice of actions.
1) I would use Fall of Poland if it wouldn't be a planned deliberate extermination of polish inteligence, officers, and authorities, by both Soviets and Nazis...Almost everyone who wasn't ignorant peasant was targeted(to different extent of course).

2)Maybe because US had Japan under its foot and sorted things immediately? Plus Japan even now will not dare to upset US with attempts to falsify history...

3)not more than 17 Years and some particular documents known* from their title, signature, date stamp are still unavailable to us. *We got the index, but most important documents were never handed.

4)What more I have to know about people who first tortured, then ordered and shot into back of the heads of POWs? Only Thing I want to know about them are their signatures and names under order and post-order reports... Ghosts didn't kill 20000 people with shot in back of the head...

GodlessAmerica!

09-20-2007, 07:28 PM

Да че вы с ними спорите, пацаны?:roll: Если полякам так нравиться упиваться своими обидами - пускай упиваються! :|

Doublethinker

09-20-2007, 07:55 PM

Boring.

And meaningless. Unless someone wants to provoke another flame-war, there's little to achieve from such discussions. While Putin is still a president.

Mamont

09-20-2007, 08:03 PM

1) I would use Fall of Poland if it wouldn't be a planned deliberate extermination of polish inteligence, officers, and authorities, by both Soviets and Nazis...Almost everyone who wasn't ignorant peasant was targeted(to different extent of course). I really don't know what exactly you were smoking there, but i see you too need a little repetition in history, like Switek earlier. Let's see.
- SU viewed Poland as an enemy and one of the major possible allies of Nazi Germany. Anyone with at least basic knowledge of pre-war diplomatics know this. Even to this day some people in Poland claimed, that if not for arrogant and over-confident foreighn diplomacy Poland would march again through streets of Moscow with it's ally - the Third Reich.
- i never saw any hint of a directive, order or any document, that specifically pointed to extermionation of polish intelligence. Farthermore - why only relatively small number of prisoners was actually taken and killed? Or was there so little intelligence in Poland at that time?
- if all officers and intelligence were targeted for extermination, how come polish "union of armed resistance" turned to Kremlin for aid in battle with germans in 1940 and Stanislav Pstrokomskiy, who was arrested actually, even freely proposed a creation of "polish legion in red army"? Vanda Vasilevska supported such creation too. And out of three polish generals in custody two agreed to head such unit(Boruta-Spechovitch and Przhdeckiy) if Sikorsky passes his agreement, and third - Janushajtis - agreed without any need of words from Polish goverment in exile? Why they were even asked to do this and not simply killed and replaced by soviet commanders? Why create a polish unit anyway?
- during soviet invasion about 240000 soldiers were taken as prisoners. And only ~40k remained in soviet prisons to 1940(plus about 5k later from Baltic countries) out of whitch less than half was murdered - 15k. This shamefull act is described in Polish history as genocide. So, in other words out of 245000 polish citisens 230k were ignorant peasants. Not to mention the rest of the population. If someone stated such for my country i'd feel insulted.
- Let's continue about pre-war deportations. In 1939(2 december to be precise) Beria proposed Stalin to deport all former polish soldiers from P-SU1920 war, so-called "osadniki", from newly annexed territories. This operation must've been completed to 15 february 1940. They were not deported as part of "annihilation of polish intelligence", but as labor force and to ensure that in the upcoming war they would not join the Germany in another war with SU. Among "osadniki" there were members of families of prisoners, prostitutes, criminals, different refugees. Those who wished to move to Germany-occupied territory but received rejection from Germany must be moved deeper into the SU territory. Their deportation was delayed untill german comission ended it's work - 5 june 1940. According to instruction family members of repressed and warprisoners must be moved to Kazachtan for a period of 10 year, refugees - Ural and Syberia, criminals, prostitutes - Kazachstan and Uzbekistan. On 1.04.1940 number of deported was 210559. Although some researchers estimated the numbers up to 320-380k without any documents to support this. Why they were not killed? Even received amnesty and set free in august 1941? And in january 1943 they received passports while 165k people choosed to have soviet citisenship, 26k choosed to leave polish? And from when prostitutes are counted as intelligence?

We got the index, but most important documents were never handed. Why not take a trip to Russia by yourself?

4)What more I have to know about people who first tortured, then ordered and shot into back of the heads of POWs? Only Thing I want to know about them are their signatures and names under order and post-order reports... And? There are many people in the world that served for their country in a less fashioned way. Like Anthony Poshepny for example. Or polish offcer Grobitski, who boasted about how he and his fellow officers cut belly of a captured red army soldiers and put cat in, and then bet on who dies first - cat or soldiers. You have no right to judge them.

StukaJr

09-20-2007, 08:08 PM

I'm not sure what such a Politically motivated topic is doing in the History thread - especially taken out of context of decades of preceding historical events and putting things into something as simple and crude as the original statement... Politically speaking, this topic is naive in its expectation of any nation to bend over any further to make concessions than Russia has - extraordinary, must I add, for the side that won in the conflict!
Wake up and smell the textbook...

seer

09-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Да че вы с ними спорите, пацаны?:roll: Если полякам так нравиться упиваться своими обидами - пускай упиваються! :|

Hebrew???................

seer

09-20-2007, 09:19 PM

I really don't know . etc etc......

Uncle Stalin would be proud. :)

StukaJr

09-20-2007, 09:21 PM

Hebrew???................

Russian for (crudely translated):

"Why are you arguing, guys? If Poles want to get drunk on past trespasses - then let them"...

Uncle Stalin would be proud. :)

Stop the childish comments if you have nothing to add on topic... a$$hole

Mishka Zubov

09-20-2007, 11:56 PM

I really don't know what exactly you were smoking there, but i see you too need a little repetition in history, like Switek earlier. Let's see.
(...)

I do not understand what on earth you are trying to prove here.
- That "only relatively small number of prisoners was actually taken and killed"?
- That not "all officers and intelligence were targeted for extermination"?
- That this is wrong that "Polish history [describes it] as genocide", because only a fraction of detainees have been actually murdered?
- That this is OK to conduct massive deportations because they "were members of families of prisoners, prostitutes, criminals, different refugees"?
- That Soviet Union was very generous in offering amnesty to 210,559 people, or even passports? [This one is really good]
- That 165,000 Poles voluntarily and happily accepted SU citizenship?

How pathetic! Some of my family members, who escaped the deportations and did not suffer like the rest of them, but were - unlucky enough - born in today's Ukraine, had the "Nationality - Polish, Citizenship - Soviet Union" written into their internal passports - until the year 1956. This was done by decree and agreement between Polish People's Republic and Soviet Union.

And I love this word "amnesty". Amnesty of what? Of nationality?

i never saw any hint of a directive, order or any document, that specifically pointed to extermionation of polish intelligence.

If Polish senior and junior officers, intelligence personnel, government officials, landowners, priests, factory owners, or even settlers and police were not part of Polish intelligentsia - I do not know who was. All prewar Polish officers had university degree. I use only the wording taken from the document below.

Government officials? This covers all kind of bureaucracy - clerks included.

Since Poland's conscription system required every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer, the Soviets were thus able to round up much of the Polish intelligentsia, as well as the Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre

True, the document does not explicitly mention doctors, university professors, etc. - but they also suffered and that's another topic.

Let's read the basic document, which exists on a Russian website. I have no proof of its authenticity, but since Russian Federation has refused to share its documentation with the Polish Institute of National Memory, we can only go either by Polish sources (which you obviously reject by definition) or by some documents which are not official.

Russian source: http://katyn.codis.ru/kdocs1.htm
English translation: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1791/beria.html

Emphasis and slight formatting is mine.

Top Secret
5 March 1940
USSR People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs
Moscow

To Comrade Stalin

A large number of former officers of the Polish Army, employees of the Polish Police and intelligence services, members of Polish nationalist, counter-revolutionary parties, members of exposed counter-revolutionary resistance groups, escapees and others, all of them sworn enemies of Soviet authority full of hatred for the Soviet system, are currently being held in prisoner-of-war camps of the USSR NKVD and in prisons in the western provinces of Ukraine and Belarus.

The military and police officers in the camps are attempting to continue their counter-revolutionary activities and are carrying out anti-Soviet agitation. Each of them is waiting only for his release in order to start actively struggling against Soviet authority.

The organs of the NKVD in the western provinces of the Ukraine and Belarus have uncovered a number of counter-revolutionary rebel organisations.
Former officers of the Polish Army and police as well as gendarmes have played an active role in all of these organisations.

Amongst the detained escapees and violators of the state borders a considerable number of people have been identified as belonging to counter-revolutionary espionage and resistance organisations.

14,736 former officers, government officials, landowners, police, gendarmes, prison guards, settlers in the border regions and intelligence officers [more than 97% are Poles] are being held in prisoner-of-war camps.

This number includes soldiers and junior officers.

Included are:
generals, colonels and lieutenant colonels- 295
majors and captains- 2080
lieutenants, second lieutenants and ensigns- 6049
officers and juniors of the police, gendarmes, prison guards and intelligence officers- 1030
rank and file police officers, gendarmes, prison guards and intelligence personnel- 5138
government officials, land owners, priests, settlers in border regions- 144

18,632 detained people are being kept in the western region of the Ukraine and Belarus [10,685 are Poles]

They include:
former officers- 1207
former intelligence officers of the police and gendarmerie 5141
spies and saboteurs- 347
former land owners, factory owners and government officials- 465
members of various counter-revolutionary and resistance organisations and other counter-revolutionary elements- 5345
escapees- 6127

In view of the fact that all are hardened and uncompromising enemies of Soviet authority, the USSR NKVD considers it necessary:
[1] To instruct the USSR NKVD that it should try before special tribunals:
[a] the cases of the 14,700 former Polish officers, government officials,land owners, police officers, intelligence officers, gendarmes, settlers in the border regions and prison guards being held in prisoner-of-war camps;
[b] together with the cases of 11,000 members of various counter-revolutionary organisations of spies and saboteurs, former land owners, factory owners, former Polish officers, government officials, and escapees who have been arrested and are being held in the western provinces of the Ukraine and Belarus and apply to them the supreme penalty: shooting.

[2] Examination of the cases is to be carried out without summoning those detained and without bringing charges, the statements concerning the conclusion of the investigation and the final verdict should be as follows:
[a] for persons being held in prisoner-of-war camps, in the form of certificates issued by the NKVD of the USSR NKVD;
[b] for arrested personnel in the form of certificates issued by the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR and the NKVD of the Belarus SSR.
[3] The cases should be examined and the verdict ****ounced by a three person tribunal consisting of comrades Merkulov, Kobulov and Bashtakov.

People's Commissar for the Internal Affairs of the USSR
L Beria

[Signed by: Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Mikoyan, Kalinin and Kaganovich]

dimasorokine

09-21-2007, 06:39 AM

Look again at the the thread title:

"Aniversary Of Soviet Russians and Nazi Germans joining efforts to destroy Poland"

Shut up kid and go to bed. :bash:

Wow, this “Soviet Russian” took one look at the title and instantly felt horrible for what him and his grandparents did to you.

I was going to restrain myself from posting in this thread (mostly because I feel horrible), but I couldn’t resist…

Quite honestly, asking Russians to apologize and feel bad about everything that the NKVD, Stalin and the Soviet government did is not only pointless – but can actually be perceived as an insult to many Russians.

Why? Because Russians suffered most under this rule – and frankly apologizing for someone who killed and slaughtered your people in much, MUCH greater numbers is something most people (this “Soviet Russian” included), aren’t going to be willing to do.

Furthermore, in a time such as WW2 – where death tolls, massacres and atrocities were as frequent as a single coalition soldier getting killed in Iraq – as horrible as it may sound: it’s the way things were done, to everyone.

-Dima

Mamont

09-21-2007, 06:58 AM

I do not understand what on earth you are trying to prove here. First of all i'm not prooving anything. I'm giving abit more detailed information, than simple rants. Second - this information is not intended to overthrow a polish religious belief in their own purity and a sinister plot by two dictators to crush "poor little" Poland. You know, we live in a word where all events are a results either straight or relative of another's. WW2 did not started out of the blue, because Hitler woke up in the morning at that day and said to himself: "Hey, it'll be cool if i rule the world. Let's do it".

- That "only relatively small number of prisoners was actually taken and killed"?
- That not "all officers and intelligence were targeted for extermination"?
- That this is wrong that "Polish history [describes it] as genocide", because only a fraction of detainees have been actually murdered? You're correct. Especially about term "genocide". Words have meaning and are intended to be used according to that. Genocide is used by polish side as way to simply put themselfes on the same level of suffering as jews, to victimize themselfes even more. And of course to equalise SU and Germany. Especially before those with little knowledge of polish history. Simply put - Poland fell victim to her own politics. She realised her mistakes too late. All that followed is a direct result of this. There is no chance, that fall of Poland could be viewed separatedly, without taking notion of previous events.

- That this is OK to conduct massive deportations because they "were members of families of prisoners, prostitutes, criminals, different refugees"? Yes. It's a neccessary way to ensure a peacefull life in occupied territories during troubled times without turning to last resort e.g. terror tactics. Not to mention the decrease a number of possible enemy allies in the upcoming war.

- That Soviet Union was very generous in offering amnesty to 210,559 people, or even passports? [This one is really good] You're worring me. How come "generous"? Practical. Simple as that. No need to make up things.

- That 165,000 Poles voluntarily and happily accepted SU citizenship?You have something to say that this was not true?

Some of my family members [...] had the "Nationality - Polish, Citizenship - Soviet Union" written into their internal passports Horror indeed. Anyway to what this is related to?

And I love this word "amnesty". Amnesty of what? Of nationality? It is known - mainly 54 or 58 article of Criminal Codex. For example from 22 september to 1 october 1939 28 polish soldiers and policemen were judged: for contrrevolutionary(terror and murder of red army soldiers) crimes - 20(13 were executed); robbery - 4, armed robbery - 3, raping - 1.

If Polish senior and junior officers, intelligence personnel, government officials, landowners, priests, factory owners, or even settlers and police were not part of Polish intelligentsia - I do not know who was. You might wat to re-read what Hermannek wrote. I answered to him. Specifically to the "all that was not an ignorant peasant" sentence. No need to heat up on your part. But i see, that polish members view intelligence as a innocents by default.

Let's read the basic document, which exists on a Russian website.
I have no proof of its authenticity, Autenticy of this document really is being discussed. Too many suspicios details. Anyway, they were described as enemies.

we can only go either by Polish sources (which you obviously reject by definition) Hm, you're starting to get really funny. "Us or them" - i was right...

Mishka Zubov

09-21-2007, 09:30 AM

I do not know whether to laugh or to cry reading such arguments. But your post has been very instructive - I understand better the Russian propaganda machine now.

As to my family members being forcefully assigned Soviet Union citizenship - this was not to show how oppressed they were, it was just to prove how pathetic and weak your arguments had been. They had not been given any choice. At times it was laughable but deep down they were scared sh1t of potential "invitation" to the land of happy.

Mamont

09-21-2007, 10:04 AM

I do not know whether to laugh or to cry reading such arguments. But your post has been very instructive - I understand better the Russian propaganda machine now. Hm, as this forum has shown numerous times, when people instead of discussing the subject bring out the "propaganda" card - they're out of arguments. Next.

As to my family members being forcefully assigned Soviet Union citizenship - this was not to show how oppressed they were, So, they were not forced to accept citisenship under the barrel? I'm surprised, really.

it was just to prove how pathetic and weak your arguments had been. In what way? Please do tell.

They had not been given any choice. Than what those 26k people that remained polish citisens were what? Why your family members did not returned to Poland? Or flee the SU with retreating germans? Or emigrate if the life in SU was so cruell and bad?

At times it was laughable but deep down they were scared sh1t of potential "invitation" to the land of happy. This was very entertaining comment, thank you.

ursus

09-21-2007, 10:08 AM

...

Quite honestly, asking Russians to apologize and feel bad about everything that the NKVD, Stalin and the Soviet government did is not only pointless – but can actually be perceived as an insult to many Russians.

Nobody is asking Russians to apologize. Its asking the current Russian government to stop white washing history and stop protecting criminals. !!! Nobody is blaming all Russians or the current Russian government for the crimes comitted. Even the polish president Lech Kaczynski said so.

Furthermore, in a time such as WW2 – where death tolls, massacres and atrocities were as frequent as a single coalition soldier getting killed in Iraq – as horrible as it may sound: it’s the way things were done, to everyone.

-Dima
Very poor excuse to murder people. 'Others did it so we did it too'. Most countries did NOT do it. Germany and Russia seem to be the bigest culprits in Europe. Germany came clean at least in the public. Russia seems to have big problems with it.

As to saying 'Soviet Russia' I think the term is very accurate. It is like saying 'Nazi Germany'. This is your history deal with it.

PS. From the posts by Russian members in this thread I gather that when in Poland the communists fed us their propaganda we laughed at it. In Russia you belived it.

Mishka Zubov

09-21-2007, 11:04 AM

(...)
So, they were not forced to accept citisenship under the barrel? I'm surprised, really.

In what way? Please do tell.

Than what those 26k people that remained polish citisens were what?

Why your family members did not returned to Poland? Or flee the SU with retreating germans? Or emigrate if the life in SU was so cruell and bad?

This was very entertaining comment, thank you.

You missed my point. Let me elaborate - using as an example a story of my great-grandfather Jan. He was born in Carpatian Ruthenia, today's Zakarpattia Oblast, Ukraine, in the family of woodmen. His father ran a forest inspectorate. Socially - he would be also targetted by Beria's people as an enemy of the state. But that's a different story, and quite tragic too. But I will stick to Jan's story.

Young Jan has decided to follow his father's footsteps. There were two good universities that taugt forestry in Poland: Lwow (Lviv) and Poznan, western Poland. For some reason he was sent to Poznan. He was still a student when the WW2 broke. He spent the German occupation with another branch of his family, which used to live in Pomerania, near Torun.

After the war, when the communists came into power, everybody had to carry internal passwords, the identity books. I am sure you are familar with such concept. These documents were being issued on the basis of birth certificates, or rather baptismal certificates. And his certificate clearly demonstrated where he had been born - in current Soviet Union territory, of course.

As I said before - Soviet Union insisted that all those born in current territories of Soviet Union would be given Soviet citizenship. And Polish People's Republic obediently followed the instruction. So he was carrying an identity book with the entry: "Nationality: Polish, Citizenship: Soviet Union".

No, he was not forced to it under a gun barrel. Such document was handed to him by Polish Citizen's Militia (police). He had no choice. None, whatsoever. That's all what I was saying in my previous posts.

What were the repercutions? Aside from patriotic feelings being constantly hurt and a constant fear of possibility of forceful resettlement to SU - practically none. What a difference, everybody was riding in the same cart. Certainly, if push came to shove, the Polish People's Republic would not care less about his status.

For those who care to hear the rest of the story: He went back to Poznan University (later they established a separate Agrarian Academy, but in early years the forestry was taugt at A. Mickiewicz University), graduated and made a successful career in that field - ending up as a deputy director of National Forestry Management, Gdansk voivodship. That's as high as he could go without a communist party membership.

Lokos

09-21-2007, 12:26 PM

As to saying 'Soviet Russia' I think the term is very accurate.

No, it's not. Soviet Russia was but one Republic in a union thereof. Nazi Germany is the German state under the Nazi regime. When you say 'Soviet Russia', you mean the Soviet Union, which certainly wasn't simply 'Soviet Russia'. By your logic, 'Soviet Russia' implies that Poland was attacked by the Russian republic, alone, under the Soviets.

Lokos

Switek

09-21-2007, 12:32 PM

According to Polish literary output esp. before WW2, Soviet Union , USSR and Soviet Russia mean the same.

Lokos

09-21-2007, 12:51 PM

Then the Polish literary output was wrong, as well... Equating Russia and the Soviet Union is a mistake, any which way it is examined.

Lokos

seer

09-21-2007, 01:22 PM

Then the Polish literary output was wrong, as well... Equating Russia and the Soviet Union is a mistake, any which way it is examined.

Lokos

You can not escape your past by changing your last name.

Switek

09-21-2007, 01:39 PM

Then the Polish literary output was wrong, as well... Equating Russia and the Soviet Union is a mistake, any which way it is examined. Lokos

Wrong on legal basis, may be, but right as a general description. But this a pure academic dispute.

Russia is a legal successor of Soviet Union aka USSR aka Soviet Russia, isn't it?

Mamont

09-21-2007, 01:40 PM

His father ran a forest inspectorate. Socially - he would be also targetted by Beria's people as an enemy of the state. If he was - it would be impossible for him to live in Zakarpatje. Up until 1953 or farther if he was charged with counter-revolutionary activities.. I'm from Transkarpathia myself. 6 generation.

Young Jan has decided to follow his father's footsteps. There were two good universities that taugt forestry in Poland: Lwow (Lviv) and Poznan, western Poland. So much for extermitation of polish intelligence, i see...

After the war, when the communists came into power, everybody had to carry internal passwords, the identity books. I'm not quite familiar with post-war polish policies on passport issue, to tell the truth. So i take your word for it.

And his certificate clearly demonstrated where he had been born - in current Soviet Union territory, of course. Of course.

As I said before - Soviet Union insisted that all those born in current territories of Soviet Union would be given Soviet citizenship. BS. This action was issued internally in SU. And not for all people, as we know. No post-war countries outside SU never gave exclusively soviet citisenship to any of their residents. So i find it hard to believe. If this was during 1939-41, when eastern Poland was under the SU, than it's understandable. But after the war it was rather strange in not exeptional. Let's bring more light on the issue - treaty of double citisenship was first sighned by SU with Mongolia in 1937. After the war SU signed similar treaties with Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Chechoslovakia in 50th.

And Polish People's Republic obediently followed the instruction. So he was carrying an identity book with the entry: "Nationality: Polish, Citizenship: Soviet Union". BS again. according to treaty a person was allowed to choose own citisenship for a period of time, usually year. If person did not choose, than citisenship automaticly became of that country, in which person continually lived.

No, he was not forced to it under a gun barrel. Such document was handed to him by Polish Citizen's Militia (police). He had no choice. None, whatsoever. That's all what I was saying in my previous posts. And BS again. Read SU-P treaty from 25 march of 1957 for example.

Stop embarrasing yourself. If your ancestor endured hardships, that doesn't mean all others experienced the same. I'm probably too rude, but really - what with "victim" mentality?

He went back to Poznan University (later they established a separate Agrarian Academy, but in early years the forestry was taugt at A. Mickiewicz University), graduated and made a successful career in that field Another proof of extermination of polish intelligence i believe...

Flamming_Python

09-21-2007, 02:30 PM

Wrong on legal basis, may be, but right as a general description. But this a pure academic dispute.

Russia is a legal successor of Soviet Union aka USSR aka Soviet Russia, isn't it?

Other way 'round Switek. Correct on a legal basis, wrong as a general description. And these misonceptions that I have seen in the past few posts have been a direct result of ignorance, of the 'propaganda' that Russia always gets accused of. Russia = USSR according to the West, so that's what you believe. Not that it doesn't have some basis on truth, but that sort of statement is very much a simplification that ends up getting things wrong, like so many simplifications.

Pre-WW2 USSR was a very mixed pot of different ideas and policies. In Soviet Ukraine during the 30's, you had a large-scale program of Ukrainisation, attempting to assimilate minorities (mostly Russians). Brezhnev is a good example, who listed his nationality as Ukrainian in order to progress through the ranks of the local Communist party at that time, and only later during the 60's did he come out and say that he was actually a Russian.

In Soviet Russia in the 20's, you had hundreds of Russian Orthodox monastaries destroyed, control of clergy, overthrowing of old Russian intelligencia from the imperial times, basically a wide-spread campiagn to stiffle and destroy Russian identity, and replace it with a Soviet identity, which would allow for the Russians to feel more in common with their fellow republics.

Mind you, i'm not complaining. I think it was neccessery to bring Russia and the rest of the republics from out of the Stone Age, and achieve at least some semblence of solidarity and peace between different ethnic groups. But to each his own I guess.

GodlessAmerica!

09-21-2007, 03:51 PM

If over next hundred years another partition of Poland or Russian-Polish war not occur, than maybe relations between two our nations will become more friendly. :)

Switek

09-21-2007, 04:26 PM

Sooner or later it'll happend I guess. Anyway whe have few thing in common and there are some solid basis for friendship

GodlessAmerica!

09-21-2007, 05:04 PM

Slavs should not be at enmity with each other, but instead live in peace and harmony!:hug: We could hate someone else!:) Немцев!;)

dimasorokine

09-21-2007, 06:26 PM

Nobody is asking Russians to apologize. Its asking the current Russian government to stop white washing history and stop protecting criminals. !!! Nobody is blaming all Russians or the current Russian government for the crimes comitted. Even the polish president Lech Kaczynski said so.

I speak of the arguement in this thread...you are asking Russians to side with the Polish governemnt's requests, and admit the guilt. Read through the thread and you can see what I'm talking about - my problem is with the thread.

Very poor excuse to murder people. 'Others did it so we did it too'. Most countries did NOT do it. Germany and Russia seem to be the bigest culprits in Europe. Germany came clean at least in the public. Russia seems to have big problems with it.

As to saying 'Soviet Russia' I think the term is very accurate. It is like saying 'Nazi Germany'. This is your history deal with it.

PS. From the posts by Russian members in this thread I gather that when in Poland the communists fed us their propaganda we laughed at it. In Russia you belived it.

This is no excuse, but the way things were - yes, everyone did it and the "Soviet Russian" government did it most to their own people...

And no, "Soviet Russia" is NOT like saying "Nazi Germany".

As for your PS, I can come to many conclusions about the polish members of this forum which would be a lot more accurate than yours.

Mishka Zubov

09-21-2007, 07:28 PM

If he was - it would be impossible for him to live in Zakarpatje. Up until 1953 or farther if he was charged with counter-revolutionary activities.. I'm from Transkarpathia myself. 6 generation.

OK, I have not been quite accurate here. This was Stanis?awów voivodship (Ivano-Frankovsk), it's very south part, although close to Transkarpathia. Sorry for that.

So much for extermitation of polish intelligence, i see...
You just don't listen - the more I write the more you misconstrue. I clearly said - young Jan went to study in Poznan before the WW2, did not I?

I'm not quite familiar with post-war polish policies on passport issue, to tell the truth. So i take your word for it.

BS again. Read SU-P treaty from 25 march of 1957 for example.

Again, you see what you want to see in my posts. Three posts ago I said - until 1956. Now you are citing some treaty from 1957. I have no reason to mistrust the old gentleman's word. I'd take his against yours any time.

Stop embarrasing yourself. If your ancestor endured hardships, that doesn't mean all others experienced the same. I'm probably too rude, but really - what with "victim" mentality?

Yes, you apparently enjoy being rude. What the hell are you talking about? Did I complain here? The only reason I came with this personal story was to show that your statement about Poles voluntarily choosing the Soviet citizenship was a real BS.

Another proof of extermination of polish intelligence i believe...
Sardonic - are you? Yes, some of them survived. But how does your irony apply to Jan if he was long gone from those territories before your braves came in?

Mamont

09-21-2007, 09:35 PM

OK, I have not been quite accurate here. This was Stanis?awów voivodship (Ivano-Frankovsk), it's very south part, although close to Transkarpathia. Sorry for that.Hm. When he was repressed exactly?

You just don't listen - the more I write the more you misconstrue. I clearly said - young Jan went to study in Poznan before the WW2, did not I?Indeed i noticed that. He survived that intelligence genocide? Yes. Allowed to receive education later - yes. What's more here to show? Man, you constantly defying your own statements.

Again, you see what you want to see in my posts. Three posts ago I said - until 1956. Now you are citing some treaty from 1957. I have no reason to mistrust the old gentleman's word. I'd take his against yours any time. :) It's a trap(c)admiral Ackbar. And you fell for it. Again, your lack of knowledge had worked against you. In 1945 10 november Supreme Court issued an order about abandoning soviet citisenship for poles and jews that are leaving Soviet Union or lived outside of SU territory. People that lived beyond border of SU that received soviet citisenship had the right for request to strip it. First talk about citisenship occured in summer 1944 with several agreements in september-october same year. And not only with Poland. Man, please - do learn at least a little bit about what you're trying to discuss here. Ignorance is not the way to discuss anything. Again - stop embarassing yourself. Really.

Yes, you apparently enjoy being rude. No, actually i'm just being straight.

The only reason I came with this personal story was to show that your statement about Poles voluntarily choosing the Soviet citizenship was a real BS. Ignorance is blessing i see... Again, if you speak truth than Jan's story is an exeption. And a _very_ rare one. To draw conclusion on about other 300k-500k poles from him is not even a big, but enormous stretch.

Sardonic - are you? Yes, some of them survived. But how does your irony apply to Jan if he was long gone from those territories before your braves came in? Think harder. How many schools, universities and other cultural and educational institutions were before and after SU intervention? After ww2?

ursus

09-22-2007, 02:20 AM

I speak of the arguement in this thread...you are asking Russians to side with the Polish governemnt's requests, and admit the guilt. Read through the thread and you can see what I'm talking about - my problem is with the thread.

So sorry your feelings were hurt. I know it is not your fault that you were born a Russian.

dimasorokine

09-22-2007, 05:30 AM

So sorry your feelings were hurt. I know it is not your fault that you were born a Russian.

Not sure if thats sarcasm, but no feeling were hurt ;)

-Dima

Annihilator9112

09-22-2007, 06:11 AM

Why cant the world just be At Peace?? take away all the guns and armies just leave the police.

There should be a new international Law.

Mishka Zubov

09-22-2007, 01:58 PM

(...)

I will not talk about some of your comments because they are irrelevant, abusive or out of topic. And the topic was: your claim about voluntarily acceptance of Soviet citizenship by Poles. I gave one counter-example, which you have attempted to ridicule.

Granted, this was not a typical example, but it was to show that the effects of SU citizenship policy have been long lasting and reached western Poland as well. But it was not such a rare case, as shown below.

People falling within the officialdom cracks in 50s were:
1. Those with SU passports in Poland (Russians, mixed families, Poles): had to report to SU consulates, extend their passports.
2. Those who returned to Poland on their own by bypassing repatriation channels and therefore having no appropriate documents.

The problem of those people was first brought to attention in 1952, after Poland's enactment of Citizenship Act in 1951 and beginning of issuing Polish identity documents. About 9000 people were in situation where their citizenship was not a clear cut - officially they were neither treated as SU nor Polish citizen.
This situation lasted until 1958, when Soviet Union entered the negotiations regarding their citizenship.

For following time-table is for your reference to place the above in appropriate frame of reference. Notice the second imposition of the Soviet citizenship on Poles in January 1943.

1939-11-29 - USSR forced Soviet citizenship on all residents of borderlands
1941-06-11 - Sikorski-Majski pakt and the 'amnesty' which was extended to the deportees after the German attack on the Soviet Union in 1941.
1942-03-24 - till early April. Evacuation from Krasnovodsk across the Caspian Sea to Pahlavi, Iran; and overland from Ashkhabad to Mashhad.
1942-08-10 - till 1942-09-01. As above. Altogether 115,000 Polish citizens evacuated, including 37,000 civilians of whom 18,300 were children.
1943-01-13 - Discovery of Katyn mass graves by Germans
1943-01-16 - SU enforces Soviet citizenship on Poles again[1]
1943-04-25 - SU breaks diplomatic relation with Polish London government
1945-07-06 - Repatriation agreement between SU and Lublin government. Rights to choose a citizenship.
1946-1948 - First phase of repatriation, approx. 9,000 people repatriated
1951-01-08 - Polish enactment of Citizenship Act
1951-03-22 - Resolution of Polish Council of Ministers (CoM) about disbanding Polish Repatriation Agency (PUR). End of repatriation, phase 1.
1953-12-23 - Resolution of CoM about organization of a new repatriation.
1955-04-28 - Resolution of SU government about repatriation of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Koreans and Chinese
1957-03-25 - Repatriation agreement between Poland and SU.
1957-1959 - Mass repatriation, approx. 240,000 people repatriated[2]

[1]
On January 16, 1943 the Peoples' Commissariat of External Affair sent a note to Polish Embassy about withdrawing its decision about granting Polish citizenship to persons living in the former Polish territories, which have been incorporated to SU on November 1, 1939.

Consequently, the certificates and proofs provided by Polish Embassy have been taken away from them. The Soviet authorities demanded signing documents of acceptance of Soviet citizenship. Any protest led to repressions and penalties, and the refusal to accept Soviet citizenship was considered as hostile act against Soviet Union.
source: http://www.zpowrotemwpolsce.info/index2.html
translated by MZ

[2] The repatriation operation, known then as the mass repatriation, has been conducted with a flourish, and widely reported in media. Its basic shortcoming was that its technical execution was handled by Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs. Helplessness of Polish Embassy in Moscow with respect to Soviet bureaucracy and reluctance of some Soviets towards evacuation of Poles were the main reasons why this operation has not been conducted to the very end. About one-two millions of Poles have been left behind the Eastern border.

k98_man

09-22-2007, 03:15 PM

Pfft. Soviets didn't even do much. They just let the Germans take over most of the country.:roll:

Mamont

09-22-2007, 05:47 PM

the topic was: your claim about voluntarily acceptance of Soviet citizenship by Poles. I gave one counter-example, which you have attempted to ridicule. Interesting. You wanted to paint a big picture with only one though personal but minor case? Good luck, you're gonna need it. For example - several members of my family after the war choosed German and Chechoslovak citisenship. So i can draw a picture several times larger. Looks silly, isn't it?

Granted, this was not a typical example, but it was to show that the effects of SU citizenship policy have been long lasting and reached western Poland as well. But it was not such a rare case, as shown below. As long as you choose not to read about SU citishenship history and politics or take just small exerpts from unknown sources the more you'll sound like stubborn child protecting his fantasies.

People falling within the officialdom cracks in 50s were:
1. Those with SU passports in Poland (Russians, mixed families, Poles): had to report to SU consulates, extend their passports. Oh. man. here we go again. They had either extend their passports and thus citisenship, or apply to revoke it. Additionaly they have right of optation in case of double citisenship. By the order of Supreme Court from 13 july 1955 the right to freely choose citisenship was granted to all soviet poles, their family members, to all soviet citisens that wished to move to Poland. Again, afair, agreements about citisenship were sighned usually for a one year, than prolongated by corresponding order. This order only widened previous, from 10 november 1945.

2. Those who returned to Poland on their own by bypassing repatriation channels and therefore having no appropriate documents. That's problem of polish administration and law, not SU's.

they were neither treated as SU nor Polish citizen. I'm curious, how this is going along with the Jan's story?

This situation lasted until 1958, when Soviet Union entered the negotiations regarding their citizenship. Wrong. As i already stated with corresponding documents.

1943-01-16 - SU enforces Soviet citizenship on Poles again Enforced? While 165k became soviet citisens, 26 000 people successfully preserved their polish citisenship. Why you constantly ignoring this fact? What SU really enforced and was really annoying - passport law. No need to replace one subject with another.

1945-07-06 - Repatriation agreement between SU and Lublin government. Rights to choose a citizenship. Before that, at 22 june, 14 july and 9 september 1944. Interestingly how you left aside the most important part of the agreement from 6 july 1945 - Soviet Union agreed to gave permission to abandon soviet citisenship and relocate to Poland to all poles, that had polish citisenship before 17 september 1939. You're completely omitting direct agreements between BSSR and USSR with PNR and other similar cases in 1944 about evacuation of poles, that previously lived in western parts of those republics to Poland.

On January 16, 1943 the Peoples' Commissariat of External Affair sent a note to Polish Embassy about withdrawing its decision about granting Polish citizenship to persons living in the former Polish territories, which have been incorporated to SU on November 1, 1939. That's not entirely correct. And, as a usual move, is not full and out of the context, which is Anders's army and it's concequences. The right to choose polish citisenship remained exclusively for the former polish citisens that before 1 september 1939 lived on territories that was not included in SU after 17 september. To clear issue a bit more - note was about cancellation of several exeptions from the soviet citisenship law. So in other words those poles, that fled germany-occupied territory still had the right to preserve their citisenship.

Why are you ignoring the question about polish intelligence and education? I think it's fully relevant to the topic. I'd like to see the idea - "destruction of Poland" - described with adequate backing in form of documents, events, results about level of education, manufacturing, healthcare etc compared to pre-ww2 situation.

The repatriation operation, known then as the mass repatriation, has been conducted with a flourish, and widely reported in media. [...] About one-two millions of Poles have been left behind the Eastern border. 1-2 million? Nice - one million here, one million there.. Out of maximum 380k. Some very advanced arithmetics here.. :) And Christ, SU is guilty again. Now for inability of poles to return to their country. Bad for annexing, bad for freeing, bad for repatriation.. Bad all around.. Clearly, something is really warped in the heads of them poles...

Anyway, as much as i appreciated the rise in our level of discussion, please, prepare yourself better to continue discussion without resorting to propagandistic motives.

Pfft. Soviets didn't even do much. They just let the Germans take over most of the country.:roll: Priceless.. Now SU is guilty for not occupying more than it was...

Mishka Zubov

09-23-2007, 09:34 PM

Mamont said a lot of things...

Let me summarize and respond to just a few:
Re: Falling within official cracks
I said that there had been about 9000 cases of people with Soviet passports or without papers and that Polish authorities did not know what to do about them until 1958 when this situation was finally sorted out with the Soviet authorities. You responded that this was impossible because of the previous decisions - including year 1955 Soviet Supreme Court decision - to freely choose a citizenship.

When I shortly noted: "had to report to SU consulates, extend their passports" I simply noted the fact, I did not question the reasons. What's wrong with you?

My source was a report based on the archives of Lebus (Ziemia Lubuska), voivodship Zielona Góra, a region which had received a significant percentage of repatriates. The paper is in Polish, but you can safely read it, if you know the language. And don't worry, it does not contain any contagious propaganda - just a simple description of the data pertaining to the region.
source: "Witold Towpik - Repatriacja Polaków z ZSRR na Ziemię Lubuską", http://zbc.uz.zgora.pl/Content/2548/RoczLub31b.pdf

I'll translate the respective fragments:

First, a bit expanded form of what I already wrote before:

People coming to Poland with Soviet passports had been treated as Soviet citizens - they had to extend their stay and report to Russian consulates. These people did not benefit from Polish citizenship rights but they also did not have any obligations pertaining to Polish citizenship. They have compounded the group of those Soviet citizens, who choose to stay in Poland for one reason or another, and the Poles from the Soviet Union who had found themselves in Poland by bypassing the repatriation operation in the years 1945-1949. The problem of these people has been only raised in 1952 - after the enactment of a Citizenship Act and beginning of the process of issuing personal certificates [internal passports - MZ]. It became apparent that about 9000 persons had un-clarified situation - whether they were citizens of Poland or Soviet Union. This state lasted until 1958, when Soviet Union signed a mutual convention related to citizenship of such persons.Before you raise the hell again read the next excerpt, which supplements the above.

In the Lebus (Polish: Ziemia Lubuska) [Zielona Góra voivodship - MZ] there were also some problems with persons holding Soviet citizenships. Presidium of Voivodship's National Council (PWRN) in Zielona Góra, Social-Administrative Section, obtained in March 1951 some directives regarding verification of Soviet citizens, living in the voivodship.

With the help of a Russian repatriation officer such verification started on February 27, 1951. All Soviet citizen had to report to the Section, including those holding certificates of their Polish citizenship. They had to provide documents, birth certificates, repatriation cards and evacuation certificates. Colonel Yushkov, a Red Army officer, has been assigned to such work in Zielona Góra by the Social-Administrative Office of the Presidium of Ministers' Council.

Soviet citizens, who had been residing in Lebus, could apply for release from the Soviet citizenship at the Soviet Consulate in Szczecin. The Soviet citizenship was troublesome to voivodship authorities and militia, due to lack of legal interpretation how to treat them and whether they qualified for repatriation entitlements.

It must be noted that some of those persons with Soviet citizenship (irrespective of their nationality - either Russian or Polish) cleverly used this situation either for material gains or as an escape from Polish jurisdiction. Quite often some of those people considered themselves as citizens of better category and complained to Soviet consulate in Szczecin about unjust and bad treatment - in their opinion - by local population.

The problem was finally solved by the convention concluded between the governments of Polish People' Republic (PRL) and Soviet Union, regarding citizenships of persons with double citizenship, signed on January 21, 1958. The most important articles - 1 and 2 - clearly stated that the persons living in either country in year 1958, and being their citizens, could freely choose one citizenship. The convention significantly simplified the work of repatriation administration and militia.
That was a description "in the field reality" - not just one-sided directives from SU. And so much about not quoting unknown sources. Those things can be easily checked in the archives of Zielona Góra.

I will leave out most of your other comments for now, otherwise this discussion will never end. But I can always come back to them later, if you wish.

Few general comments:
1. The time-table I had presented before was not meant to reflect all Soviet-Polish relations in those years, but only few important milestones pertaining to repatriation process, related to the events I was describing. No, I did not have any hidden agenda by omitting Anders'es Army thing. It was irrelevant for what I was trying to say, and frankly - too big to be treated in passing.

2. About 1 - 2 million left in SU, out of 350 thousands [your irony]. I have never said anything about them being deported in 1939. All I said that 1-2 millions were left beyond the borders - meaning that they were not able to use the repatriation process - even if they wanted to. Some sources mention 2 millions, I was conservative putting it as 1-2. Wikipedia provides a summary list of Polish nationals currently living in the terrains of former Soviet Union. It comes to about one million. Many have already died, many no longer feel Poles. In this view the two millions does not look far-fetched. One example is Kazakhstan, with estimated 80-100 thousands. Do they all want to return to Poland? Obviously not, for many reasons: economical, cultural, bureaucratic, identity, etc. For all I know - they trickle in.

It seems that there is one question which you are particularly interested in:

Why are you ignoring the question about polish intelligence and education? I think it's fully relevant to the topic. I'd like to see the idea - "destruction of Poland" - described with adequate backing in form of documents, events, results about level of education, manufacturing, healthcare etc compared to pre-ww2 situation.I would gladly handle this one next - providing that you stop nitpicking and stay focused on one topic a time.

Mamont

09-25-2007, 06:30 PM

I said that there had been about 9000 cases of people with Soviet passports or without papers and that Polish authorities did not know what to do about them until 1958 when this situation was finally sorted out with the Soviet authorities.
Soviet law was clear on this issue. From 1938 to be precise. All following agreements with various countries were only to simplify the process of aquiring citisenship or to resolve problems with soviet citisens living abroad. I already mentioned agreement between SU and Poland from 1945. All poles, excluding those with crime charges in SU or under investigation, were allowed to either leave SU or revoke citisenship in case of living abroad. Same agreement was sighned with CS only one week earlier - 29 june 1945. Order of 1955 included all categories of poles regardless of past history in the list of those who was allowed to revoke citisenship and leave SU. That's why i mentioned that it simply widened orders from 1945. in 1958 a double-sided convention was signed regarding only double citisenship. Again, soviet law was very clear on the issue of citisenship, so it was a polish problem. And the reason that convention was signed in 1958 was not only in polish internal instability and power struggle, but also a necessity to clear issues with double citisenship with Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Chechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Mongolia. With all those countries conventions were sighned in 1956-58. Speaking about Poland additional convention was signed also in 1965. According to SU law history those conventions were designed to prevent problems with double-citisenship, not citisenship in general or enforced soviet citisenship.

You responded that this was impossible because of the previous decisions - including year 1955 Soviet Supreme Court decision - to freely choose a citizenship.
Exactly. And not only poles were covered by orders from 1945 and later. So problems most probably were in contemporary polish law.

When I shortly noted: "had to report to SU consulates, extend their passports" I simply noted the fact, I did not question the reasons. What's wrong with you?
Because in my opinion you left aside other very important parts.

My source was a report based on the archives of Lebus
Again, those were the problems of polish law. Not SU's.

And thank you, i guess now we finally see that SU was not the "harbinger of doom", brutishly enforcing citisenship on defenseless poles after the war.

I will leave out most of your other comments for now, otherwise this discussion will never end. But I can always come back to them later, if you wish.
We have all the time in the word. No need to hurry, i'll wait.

No, I did not have any hidden agenda by omitting Anders'es Army thing. It was irrelevant for what I was trying to say, and frankly - too big to be treated in passing.
1943's decision of revoking exeptions from the law was a direct result of Ander's deeds, his success in evading fighting on the eastern front along with Red Army to be precise. Before that no pole could be conscripted in Red Army because of foreign citisenship(order from 1939, changed and expanded in 1941). That's why Stalin agreed to create polish army in the first place. But since Anders constantly evaded and prolongated terms of readiness the order was issued. So now poles could be conscripted in Red Army as all the rest of soviet citisens.

About 1 - 2 million left in SU, out of 350 thousands [your irony].
Ah, i thought you meant those deported in 1939-1941. But why put on the same line all deported poles and all "untouched" poles? I thought we discussed deportations/repressions and all in the light of "destruction"..

All I said that 1-2 millions were left beyond the borders - meaning that they were not able to use the repatriation process - even if they wanted to.
Why? And why "left"? I'd like to see this explained. So far, there were absolutely no legal or political barriers after 1955 to stop them from leaving, even to "enforced" into soviet citisenship poles, because in 1955 there was a general amnesty sighned to all nazi collaborators and even former members of different nazi units. Only those who were charged for murdering and/or torturing of soviet citisens were excluded. Not to mention previous amnesty in 1953 after Stalin's death.

One example is Kazakhstan, with estimated 80-100
Interesting, in 1941 in Archangelsk were ~51k, Sverdlovsk ~27k, Novosibirsk, KomiASSR, Krasnojarsk, Vologodsk, Ivanovsk, Molotovsk from 20 to 10k poles. Kazachstan is not even mentioned as one of the places with big number of poles. And as i already wrote - in Kazachstan and Uzbekistan were sent only criminals and prostitutes. In 1942 most of the poles, ~270k, were evacuated to Kazachstan, Middle Asia, Altaj, Krasnojarsk, Sverdlov, Cheljabinsk. Though i've not seen exact numbers I doubt, that out of 270k 100k were sent to Kazachstan exclusively. I've not heard of any willig polish emigration to such far territories of SU. And as i know many republican goverments actively opposed even halted(especially KFAssR) such relocations, especially after the war.

Mishka Zubov

09-26-2007, 02:41 AM

Mamont said:

One example is Kazakhstan, with estimated 80-100Interesting, in 1941 in Archangelsk were ~51k, Sverdlovsk ~27k, Novosibirsk, KomiASSR, Krasnojarsk, Vologodsk, Ivanovsk, Molotovsk from 20 to 10k poles. Kazachstan is not even mentioned as one of the places with big number of poles. And as i already wrote - in Kazachstan and Uzbekistan were sent only criminals and prostitutes. In 1942 most of the poles, ~270k, were evacuated to Kazachstan, Middle Asia, Altaj, Krasnojarsk, Sverdlov, Cheljabinsk. Though i've not seen exact numbers I doubt, that out of 270k 100k were sent to Kazachstan exclusively. I've not heard of any willig polish emigration to such far territories of SU. And as i know many republican goverments actively opposed even halted(especially KFAssR) such relocations, especially after the war.
Actually you quoted me out of context. I was talking about current estimates of Poles in Kazakhstan and I am sorry if was not clear. But actually it does not matter - I can handle both cases at the same time. :-)

Current estimates
They vary. I have seen numbers between 50 and 100 thousands. For example:

Presently, according to statistics, there are about 50,000 Poles living in Kazakhstan. Researchers however presume that that this number is much higher - about 100,000 people, since significant number of Poles had been assigned by Soviet authorities as Ukrainians or Russians. The biggest groups of Poles are in the following districts: North Kazakhstan, Kokchetav, Akmolin, Karaganda and Alma Ata.
dated 2006-04-28
source: http://www.wspolnota-polska.org.pl/index.php?id=kw6_2_18

Deportees to Kazakhstan
It seems that you have deliberately played down number of people deported to Kazakhstan. And saying that they were all criminals and prostitutes is like spitting in their faces or - what can I say - Stalin's propaganda. Yes I know about his little obsession with prostitutes.

The following are some statistics from the online Polish source by S Ciesielski, a historian, with many books and publications written over the years. I do not know him, nor his works, but I have noticed that his description of the deportation process is quite well balanced. Yes, some of the scenes are heartbreaking, but he gives the credit where the credit is due, even to some NKVD officers. And he cites Russian sources aas well. For this reason, I will use his data in the statistics that follow.
source: http://www.sciesielski.republika.pl/kazachstan/kaz2.html

Soviet NKVD data
NKVD registers have not been by any means precise and unique, because numbers vary.

1. First deportation, February 1940
Several NKVD reports, prepared in 1941-08, differ in the number of Poles deported to Kazakhstan during the first deportation: 4879, 4279

2. Second deportation, April 1940
Several reports by Beria and other NKVD sources variously describe the number of Poles deported to Kazakhstan during the second deportation: 60667, 61092, 60351, 66000, 62500

3. Third deportation, June 1940
No Poles (so-called escapees) have been deported to Kazakhstan during the third deportation in June 1940.

4. Fourth deportation, May/June 1941
12371 deportees from West Ukraine, 2291 to Kazakhstan
22353 from West Belarusia
12682 from Lithuania, with unknown number of Polish citizens
Altogether - of all the deportees the 15413 people have been sent to Kazakhstan

Based on the above numbers, excluding Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Belarusians the estimates are that 80000-82000 Poles have been deported to in Kazakhstan in 1940/1941. Beria reported to Stalin that in the period of "passport-ization", "there were 76942 of the former Polish citizens" in Kazakhstan (out of a total 387932, 391575, 389382 variously reported by Wyshinsky and Beria)

NKVD statistics
1944-05-: Kazakhstan - 76942 former Polish citizens, including 19654 Jews.
1944-05-10: 51062 former Polish citizens
1944-07-21: 75943 former Polish citizens: 45360 Poles, 3932 Belarusians, 6997 Ukrainians, 19654 Jews.
1944-07-20: 72493 former Polish citizens: 32560 Poles, 3050 Belarusians, 3879 Ukrainians, 7620 Jews, 634 others

But keep in mind that all of the above is fluid due to forced resettlement over the years.

Resettlements
1941-11-3 - a decision of resettlement of 10831 people from Kotlas, Tockoje, Tatiszczew and Buzuluk to Kazakhstan.

1941-11-19 - a decision of resettling 100000 Poles to Uzbekistan. But the latter could not cope with such number. Therefore:

1941-11-19 - a decision of sending 35000 Poles to Kazakhstan

At the same time the deportees and prisoners released from Archangelsk, Vologda, Komi started their trek down to Kazakhstan. Also Poles with Soviet passports and the Jews - escapees from the Polish terrains taken by Germans.

1942-12-31 - Resettlement of 2075 (or 2122) Poles from Saratoga to Kazakhstan (Martial Law)

End of 1944 - 10266 Poles resettled from Kazakhstan to Western Ukraine

Modern Russian researchers
Having access to some archives - estimate number of Poles in Kazakhstan, as of 1942-01-01, as 104,207 - with growing number due to migration. So the Polish embassy estimation (shown below) was not that way off.

Polish Embassy estimates
Having in mind all those confusion caused by all sorts of migrations the Polish Embassy had big problem with estimates. The initial estimates, as of 1942-01-01, were:
Altogether - 620,000 Poles
Kazakhstan - 113,000

According to Polish Embassy data, as of 1942-06, the Embassy was delivering aid to 399,500 Poles, including 142,800 in Kazakhstan. However, other sources - such as Research Commission of Justice Ministry in Teheran - had a bit different picture.

1942-11-30: 85297 or 89111 - depending on whether some districts, such as Petro-Pavlov are taken into account or ignored. This is the most complete and detailed data of Polish Embassy.

1st Section of Staff, Polish Military Forces
1942-05 - 153000 - 28000 more than estimated by the Embassy

Chief of Documentation Office of the 2nd Corps
as of 1942-10-01
Total: 681400
Kazakhstan - 144500

Polish Communists, Polish Patriots Union, estimates
Started later, better access, fuller picture. Includes Jews in some statistics.
As of middle of 1944:
Total: 329225 persons
Kazakhstan: 95742

1944-07- 64035 Poles
1945-summer: Polish-Russian Repatriation Commission: 273321 all, Kazakhstan 67600

1945-09: PPU - Total 248000 suitable for repatriation, Kazakhstan 63933.
1945-12: 53854 Polish citizens, including 37673 Polish nationals Kazakhstan.

But yet the current esitmates are at the level of at least 50000 of Poles still living in Kazakhstan - after all that repatriations - including Anders Army and all the civilians that went with him.

Mamont

09-26-2007, 02:40 PM

Deportees to Kazakhstan
It seems that you have deliberately played down number of people deported to Kazakhstan.

Now i had to really dig in my books. But let's see what i found.

Poles relocating from SU to Poland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Republic)(RegisteredPoles)(WantedToLeave)(RejectedAdults/all)Permitted(Adults)(Kids)(Total)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RF...........99495.............66449.............1103/1140................65104.29687*.94791
Ukraine......43699.............28074.............1868/199.................26269.12611..38880
Kazachstan...55430.............39412...............72/72..................38840.15219..54059
Uzbekistan...27734.............21575..............117/138.................21284..5994..27278
Kirgizstan...10249..............7275...............39/42...................7236..2879..10115
Tajikistan....3800..............2776...............22/23...................2709...973...3682
Turkmenistan...783...............634................4/4.....................607...146....753
Belorussia.....875...............723................---.....................552...316....863
Moldavia........50................44................---......................44.....6.....50
Gruzia.........385...............326................---.....................326....59....385
Armenia........146...............116................---.....................116....20....136
Azerbaijan.....250...............183................2/2.....................218....32....250
Latvia........4510..............1357...............47/51...................1310...602...1912
Karelia.........54................50................8/8......................42.....2.....44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......247460............168994.............3262/3471...............164657.68546.233198

i'm too lazy to type the rest of the table, so only summarized numbers: 224343 poles left SU by eshelons, 4471 individuially, choose not to leave 1253, left republic 2921, didn't leave due to various reasons - 331.

*62 "child homes" were sent to poland, 5174 people, used 10160 cargo and 139 passenger vagons, money aid was 3113947,76 rubles, expences for railway transport were 2705059,34 rubles, expences for organisation 2957377,54r, in total 8770384,64 rubles were spent on relocation.
This list is dated 23.11.1946, compiled by D.Bychenko, deputy chief of Relocaton administration in Soviet Ministry Council.

And saying that they were all criminals and prostitutes is like spitting in their faces or - what can I say - Stalin's propaganda. Cut the propaganda-BS. In reality they were deported separatedly, for example 9 april 1940.. In 10 april 1940 instruction was issued as to where all deported must be relocated, that specifically pointed, that prostitutes must be moved to Kazachstan. I already wrote that. No need to be retarded.

Soviet NKVD data
1. First deportation, February 1940
Several NKVD reports, prepared in 1941-08, differ in the number of Poles deported to Kazakhstan during the first deportation: 4879, 4279 Impossible. All deported starting from 10 december 1940(139590) were located in 21 regions and 115 settlements. The biggest number was relocated to Archangelsk(8084) and Krasnojarsk(3279). This was because in 29 december 1939 was a resolution issued "about special settlement and work employment of osadniki, relocated from western parts of USSR and BSSR" which specifically pointed as to where and under whose jurisdiction they must live - In northern part of european part, Ural and Syberia: Komi ASSR, Kirov, Perm, Vologda, Archangelsk, Ivanovsk, Jaroslavl, Sverdlov and Omsk regions. Most of them were employed in wood works. After P.Ponomarenko's suggestion Beria proposed to use part of the deported in Narcomcvetmet - in gold and copper mines. This was agreed in 14 january 1940.

Only from 2 march 1940 after Chruschev's proposition to strenghten borders of Ukraine and Belorussia, Kazachstan was considered as a relocation place for large number of poles - up to 25k families.

2. Second deportation, April 1940
Several reports by Beria and other NKVD sources variously describe the number of Poles deported to Kazakhstan during the second deportation: 60667, 61092, 60351, 66000, 62500 Doubtfull. In general about 61k poles were relocated in april. An while many were relocated to Kazachstan(6 regions of), some were moved to Uzbekistan or again to northern parts of SU. By the numbers in 1 april 1941 in Kazachstan there were only 5307 people, deported from former Poland, osadniki. No refugees. For example: Archangelsk - 50944(38622 osadniki, 12322 refugees), Sverdlovsk - 26702(13562/13140), Novosibirsk - 19628(3191/16437).

4. Fourth deportation, May/June 1941 It was not a deportation of poles. 15413 - that's total number of people, not poles in particular, out of which 9954 were from Moldavia, 4803 western Belorussia, 656 from Latvia. People from this deportation were considered "socially dangerous", so they belonged to exile-settlers. And retained this category up untill 1952 after which they became special-settlers.

But keep in mind that all of the above is fluid due to forced resettlement over the years. Of course. But i think we should stick to the time 1939-1945, when Poland did not exist. And while i understand the necessity to count poles that were repressed or forcefully relocated, i still don't understand why other poles must be counted as "left behind".

Modern Russian researchers ? Who exactly?

Having access to some archives - estimate number of Poles in Kazakhstan, as of 1942-01-01, as 104,207 - with growing number due to migration. So the Polish embassy estimation (shown below) was not that way off. Doubtfull. For various reasons from special orders to political and economical situation.

Having in mind all those confusion caused by all sorts of migrations the Polish Embassy had big problem with estimates. The initial estimates, as of 1942-01-01, were: Altogether - 620,000 Poles Kazakhstan - 113,000 Again, both numbers are way off. Simply SU didn't gave enough trains to relocate such number of poles. There were 211 eshelons(about 55 vagons each) used in total, from 1939 to 1941.

Man, it's poles only in Kazachstan and look what we ended up digging and writing...

Flamming_Python

09-26-2007, 04:05 PM

I lost track of this discussion a long time ago...

What are you guys arguing about again? :D

seer

09-26-2007, 04:08 PM

Flamming_Python

09-26-2007, 04:41 PM

Switek

09-26-2007, 04:43 PM

Part of my family was deported to Kazachstan and the only criminals they can remember were the red army soldiers that invaded, stole and raped inocent people. They did not bring any prostituest with them either.

My grandma's brother was deported to Siberia after "liberation" in 1944, when he was 17. He worked there as woodcutter for about 3 years. He returned with deep hate of communism, Stalin and Soviet state but with truly respect for Russians who helped him to survive.

seer

09-26-2007, 04:57 PM

My grandma's brother was deported to Siberia after "liberation" in 1944, when he was 17. He worked there as woodcutter for about 3 years. He returned with deep hate of communism, Stalin and Soviet state but with truly respect for Russians who helped him to survive.

My family was scattered throuout siberia and Kazachstan. Some suceeded to escape to Poland (the repatriation was not that easy the soviets did not want to let anybody go) Some escaped with the Anders army some came back to Poland after 51. There was always respect for Russian people in their stories. (This a$$hole Mamut or whatever his name is just pi$$ed me off with his insulting soviet propaganda )

*^*

09-26-2007, 05:31 PM

WW 2 could have ended in 1939, if FR and the UK had not honored their agreement with Poland to declare war on Germany in the eventuality that Poland be invaded.

Do you seriosly believe in that ?

Switek

09-26-2007, 05:35 PM

GodlessAmerica!

09-26-2007, 05:50 PM

seer

09-26-2007, 05:53 PM

Mamont is quite decent mp.net member and I don't see anything wrong in his posts. I do not agree with him but he defends official Soviet/Russian point of view of our common history issues.

The key is that we Poles hardly underestand the fact that it were Russians who suffered the most becouse of communist suppression. Those who survived cleansing between 1930 - 1950's in Russia were forced to cooperate with stalinist regime. Their grandchildren are speaking now. This is problem for them to sustain their history much more than for us. This is too heavy for them now.

I think Poles understand very well that Russians suffered under the comunist suppression but we also see when somebody is trying to revise history.

Switek

09-26-2007, 05:58 PM

I think Poles understand very well that Russians suffered under the comunist suppression but we also see when somebody is trying to revise history.

Every nation has its own myths, whatever the history facts says. That's this all dispute about.

Mamont

09-26-2007, 07:09 PM

the repatriation was not that easy the soviets did not want to let anybody go Hm. BS. It's your ignorance speaking. Emigration was hard in some ways, not repatriation.

This a$$hole Mamut or whatever his name is just pi$$ed me off with his insulting soviet propagandaThis clumsy attempt to insult me is amusing, but for future reference - you can talk like that with your dad. And again, when someone brings up "propaganda"-card it's a clear show of lack of arguments or simple ignorance.

seer

09-26-2007, 07:29 PM

Hm. BS. It's your ignorance speaking. Emigration was hard in some ways, not repatriation.

It is the experience of my grand parents speaking.

Doublethinker

09-26-2007, 07:50 PM

Mamont

09-26-2007, 08:43 PM

It is the experience of my grand parents speaking.So now instead of some documental proof we'll share home stories.. What those historians and studies are for? Anyway, share it...

Doublethinker, there is a section for meaningless rants.

Flamming_Python

09-26-2007, 08:53 PM

Mamont is quite decent mp.net member and I don't see anything wrong in his posts. I do not agree with him but he defends official Soviet/Russian point of view of our common history issues.

The key is that we Poles hardly underestand the fact that it were Russians who suffered the most becouse of communist suppression. Those who survived cleansing between 1930 - 1950's in Russia were forced to cooperate with stalinist regime. Their grandchildren are speaking now. This is problem for them to sustain their history much more than for us. This is too heavy for them now.

Switek, from my point of view I have a more balanced view of history, as I can see both the good (namely, rapid industrialisation and victory in the war) and bad sides of Stalin's rule.

For all the Poles, I can definetly symphathise with your position, as it's a similar tragedy to ours, but without Stalin and his 'raping, looting, stealing' Red Army, I doubt any of us would be alive right now to have this disagreement of opinions.

Flamming_Python

09-26-2007, 08:56 PM

Its an ancient Russian tradition since Muscovy took over to get ****ty governments and then defend them to the death for some abstract and illusionary goals be it gathering of Russian lands, the Third Rome, First Communist State or latest and freshest - sovereign democracy/the vertical of authority. The more brutal, bloody and heavy-handed - the moreso.

In extreme cases, when the leader gets killed for his incompetence, he also gets to be sanctified.

;)

Hmmm, so pretty much the same (superficial details aside) as with every single country/power block/geographical region/ethnic group in the world Doublethinker. And I challenge you to even find me one exception (and no don't start telling me about the Chukchi or anything like that).

What fresh ideas do you bring to the table that differs from the last 10,000 years of human civilisation?

daily666

09-26-2007, 09:02 PM

Switek, from my point of view I have a more balanced view of history, as I can see both the good (namely, rapid industrialisation and victory in the war) and bad sides of Stalin's rule.

For all the Poles, I can definetly symphathise with your position, as it's a similar tragedy to ours, but without Stalin and his 'raping, looting, stealing' Red Army, I doubt any of us would be alive right now to have this disagreement of opinions.

Well. it's all this "what if" type of speculation. The whole issue is difficult and both sides play their card to stir the emotions. Remeber "fogive, never forget"? Just came back from London and I think that many people should go there and see how many different nationalities and racies can coexist quite peacefully alongside next to each other. Even Poles and Russians.

Back on subject, there are national emotions on both sides, and the politicians who play on national emotions are to blame. Like Switek said in of his posts in other thread, our Kaczynskis are starting to act like Putin in their reign for power.

Flamming_Python

09-26-2007, 09:07 PM

Well. it's all this "what if" type of speculation. The whole issue is difficult and both sides play their card to stir the emotions. Remeber "fogive, never forget"? Just came back from London and I think that many people should go there and see how many different nationalities and racies can coexist quite peacefully alongside next to each other. Even Poles and Russians.

Back on subject, there are national emotions on both sides, and the politicians who play on national emotions are to blame. Like Switek said in of his posts in other thread, our Kaczynskis are starting to act like Putin in their reign for power.

Poles and Russians never had any problems co-existing. It's our leaders. But when the going get's tough, we each rally behind our own flag, and since the going is always tough in our part of the world, that's the just the way its going to be.

seer

09-26-2007, 10:43 PM

So now instead of some documental proof we'll share home stories.. What those historians and studies are for?

For pseudo-historians to think they understand it.

Musashi

09-27-2007, 08:14 PM

For all the Poles, I can definetly symphathise with your position, as it's a similar tragedy to ours, but without Stalin and his 'raping, looting, stealing' Red Army, I doubt any of us would be alive right now to have this disagreement of opinions.
Don't you think we would have been liberated by the Western Allies then?

Lokos

09-28-2007, 01:21 AM

Don't you think we would have been liberated by the Western Allies then?

In what context? Where the Red Army is defeated by the Germans?

How can the WA liberate any part of Europe, then, with hundreds of German divisions freed up for duty in Western and Southern Europe?

Lokos

daily666

09-28-2007, 11:46 AM

In what context? Where the Red Army is defeated by the Germans?

How can the WA liberate any part of Europe, then, with hundreds of German divisions freed up for duty in Western and Southern Europe?

Lokos

I guess it would have been possible if only the US, UK, USSR have agreed on that during one of their hi-rank conferences (Jalta for instance). They decided the other way. It's all a matter of politics not armies.

Flamming_Python

09-28-2007, 12:07 PM

Don't you think we would have been liberated by the Western Allies then?

85% of German forces were on the Eastern Front. If those 85% concentrated their forces elsewhere, it would have been the Western Allies which would be worrying about being 'liberated'.

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 07:25 AM

Anyone watched the documentary about September campaign picturing personal views, opinions, analysis made by Hitler, Stalin, and other participants from the era interlacing with reports of children spectating widely known meeting of the Nazis and soviets after campaign ended. Show was aired on our TV somewhere in last week on late night. There was I presume Stalin quote, from some meeting , explaining why he started the war and why he joined it so late it including his further plans... Anyone know where I can find this quote in writing?

TR1

09-29-2007, 07:29 AM

85% of German forces were on the Eastern Front. If those 85% concentrated their forces elsewhere, it would have been the Western Allies which would be worrying about being 'liberated'.
LOL. well put.

If all those German divisions would have been available, and somehow eventually Germany was indeed defeated by the western allies, there would have been no Poles to liberate.

Mamont

09-29-2007, 09:13 AM

There was I presume Stalin quote, from some meeting , explaining why he started the war and why he joined it so late it including his further plans... Anyone know where I can find this quote in writing? Doubt that it exist. If such acknowledgement existed - it'll be all over historical books.. Can you name the film?

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 09:16 AM

Doubt that it exist. If such acknowledgement existed - it'll be all over historical books.. Can you name the film?

No started watching it half way over... Thats why I asked for other Poles to shed some light...

Venom PL

09-29-2007, 09:59 AM

Herrmannek do you remember what TV station aired this documentary ?

Switek

09-29-2007, 10:09 AM

It was broadcasted two days ago in thuersday night on TVP1. There was quoted classified speeches of J.Stalin from 1937 and begining of 1939.

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 10:21 AM

Any way to make them into Internet? They are quite opposite to what our forum handy die-hard Stalin protectors said about Stalin real intentions... And more or less its a solid proof, not some second hand analysis our friends are so immune to :)

Switek

09-29-2007, 10:39 AM

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 10:46 AM

Negative, and for me it'd a bad idea. You'd get an opposite result couse one of the expert was Wiktor Suworow what makes all this documentary unreliable for our Russian friends, "ex definitione". May be the'll be to accept another point of view on this topic in more than 30 years from now, being optimistic.

I'm not talking about documentary itself it was obviously pro Polish item that would not convince anyone not convinced already. I was thinking about speeches themselves, they are worth being public...

Flamming_Python

09-29-2007, 12:50 PM

Negative, and for me it'd a bad idea. You'd get an opposite result couse one of the expert was Wiktor Suworow what makes all this documentary unreliable for our Russian friends, "ex definitione". May be the'll be to accept another point of view on this topic in more than 30 years from now, being optimistic.

Suvorov's analysis certainly lends credibility to the idea that Stalin would have attacked Hitler if Hitler hadn't attacked him first. I certainly wouldn't dismiss such a theory out of hand, although much critisism against his writtings exists. But at the end of the day, it changes little. There were only 2 options, Stalin or Hitler, and I still would have chosen the former rather than the latter.

Switek

09-29-2007, 01:00 PM

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 01:21 PM

Suvorov's analysis certainly lends credibility to the idea that Stalin would have attacked Hitler if Hitler hadn't attacked him first. I certainly wouldn't dismiss such a theory out of hand, although much critisism against his writtings exists. But at the end of the day, it changes little. There were only 2 options, Stalin or Hitler, and I still would have chosen the former rather than the latter.

I'm not sure, the quotes in the documentary ?words of Stalin himself? implicate that Stalin almost "created" Hitler and deliberately maneuvered him into the war. Stalin's Great Plan was to free exhausted by war Europe from Nazis. But he had to make Nazis go to war*. So he promised he will help Hitler, Hitler encouraged by this deal and inteligence saying that allies will do nothing serious stroke Poland, being sure Stalin will enter Poland together with Him**, but Stalin waited 2 weeks for the time when he was sure Allies would give a crap what he is doing. This way Stalin made his part of the deal and wasn't blamed for whole mess still having doors for future alliances opened. Main goal was achieved: He made Hitler into war with western Europe, now he planed to wait for his time to move in, rest is history... In other words If not Stalin War could never happen... Of course until I find that damn quote no one believes...

*he didn't predict that Nazis will hit east so soon, and that USA will join the game stopping him half the way victory he planned.
**Hitler was afraid that if Soviets will not be involved France and UK may actually do something or Soviets would react to that act with aggression.

Switek

09-29-2007, 01:32 PM

..., but Stalin waited 2 weeks for the time when he was sure Allies would give a crap what he is doing. This way Stalin made his part of the deal and wasn't blamed for whole mess still having doors for future alliances opened. ...

Not only couse:

Soon after the Germans invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, the Nazi leaders began urging the Soviets to play their agreed part and attack Poland from the east. The German ambassador to Moscow, Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg, and the Soviet foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, exchanged a series of diplomatic communiqués on the matter.The Soviets delayed their intervention for several reasons. They were distracted by crucial events in their border disputes with Japan; they needed time to mobilise the Red Army; and they saw a diplomatic advantage in waiting until Poland had disintegrated before making their move.

On Sept 16th, 1939 Soviet Union and Japan signed a truce.

Herrmannek

09-29-2007, 01:40 PM

Not only couse:

On Sept 16th, 1939 Soviet Union and Japan signed a truce.

Yeah, but in the documentary this were considered only excuses not real reasons... But now I'm lost who said what and when... There was very unfortunate way the documentary was shot.. Historical quotes and comments of historians where played off the screen while on the screen were shown clips from the actual events. Very bad idea, very confusing.

daily666

09-29-2007, 02:09 PM

I'm not sure, the quotes in the documentary ?words of Stalin himself? implicate that Stalin almost "created" Hitler and deliberately maneuvered him into the war. Stalin's Great Plan was to free exhausted by war Europe from Nazis. But he had to make Nazis go to war*. So he promised he will help Hitler, Hitler encouraged by this deal and inteligence saying that allies will do nothing serious stroke Poland, being sure Stalin will enter Poland together with Him**, but Stalin waited 2 weeks for the time when he was sure Allies would give a crap what he is doing. This way Stalin made his part of the deal and wasn't blamed for whole mess still having doors for future alliances opened. Main goal was achieved: He made Hitler into war with western Europe, now he planed to wait for his time to move in, rest is history... In other words If not Stalin War could never happen... Of course until I find that damn quote no one believes...

*he didn't predict that Nazis will hit east so soon, and that USA will join the game stopping him half the way victory he planned.
**Hitler was afraid that if Soviets will not be involved France and UK may actually do something or Soviets would react to that act with aggression.

I remember, I've made a historical analysis when I was at the University, that totally blasted the Suvorov's idea of Stalin actually preparing for the attack and being caught with his pants down because of that. Honestly Herrman, Suvorovs' historical credibility is close do science-fiction. It's again, nazi propaganda that sent the signal all over the world, that the attack on USSR is in fact a preemptive strike. The echoes of that are still audiable, especially among total anti-soviet historians.

Switek

09-29-2007, 04:37 PM

With all respect daily... Becouse of current lack of accessibility of the some source files in few European countries there is absolutely impossible neither false nor verify Suvorov's views.

Mamont

09-29-2007, 05:23 PM

Switek

09-29-2007, 05:38 PM

As those I can remeber were:

Icebreaker
Day "M"
Aquarium

and two more but kill me I can't remember titles.

Last book I used to read was more than 3 years ago.

daily666

09-29-2007, 09:08 PM

With all respect daily... Becouse of current lack of accessibility of the some source files in few European countries there is absolutely impossible neither false nor verify Suvorov's views.

Well, Suvorov was the first to come up with the idea of Stalin preparing an attack on IIIrd Reich, and there were almost none followers. He tried to explain this plan with an idea that BT-5 tanks could ride German autobahns with their tracks taken off, with very high speed to take Berlin. The idea is genreally described as hillarious as the closest autobahns were something like 5000km away from, than, Russian-German border.

Switek

09-30-2007, 03:17 AM

Red Army from its nature (spreading peasants and workers revolution) has never been prepared for defence purposes, from the begining till the end of Soviet Union.

Mamont

09-30-2007, 06:36 AM

Red Army from its nature (spreading peasants and workers revolution) has never been prepared for defence purposes, from the begining till the end of Soviet Union.
Oh man.. Switek, care to explain this? Do you know, when "spreading revolution" goal was officially replaced?

Switek

09-30-2007, 06:51 AM

Flamming_Python

09-30-2007, 06:59 AM

Herrmannek

09-30-2007, 07:02 AM

What do you think USA doctrine was then Switek?

Difference USA was spreading democracy and Soviets have not :) Its the same situation when You don't blame a cop for shooting bad guy, but you blame bad guy for shooting a cop... fact they had same tactic, as a standalone fact have no meaning... :)

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 07:09 AM

Red Army from its nature (spreading peasants and workers revolution) has never been prepared for defence purposes, from the begining till the end of Soviet Union.

What the hell does it mean? Best defence is offence. That's something ALL countries learned looking at France during WWII.

Mamont

09-30-2007, 07:19 AM

What's is difference between "spreading revolution" and "mantaining victories of socialist values" and "support for international fight against imperialists" and "help for socialist revolutions" and "support for national liberation movements" That's not doctrine, Switek.. It's a political course. And you again strangely forgetting(or more likely unaware of) the number of wars and personnel involved from SU in post-ww2 world.

in countries like Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979-89, not mentioning different kinds of military aid in Africa and Asia? OK. May be I've done some simpilification but I wanted to emphasise its core. Actually you're wrong, if you still don't understand. Support one's goverment is not part of the war doctrine..

btw post WW2 war doctrine of Soviet Union was offensive not defensive AFAIK. Again - explain at least in some details and examples.

Difference USA was spreading democracy and Soviets have not :) In fact i prefer soviet way of enforcing goverment with like 70 victims for example in CS than US enforced democracy in Vietnam with 2 million dead and country bombed to stone age. Or contemporary democratic Iraq.

daily666

09-30-2007, 07:27 AM

Difference USA was spreading democracy and Soviets have not :) Its the same situation when You don't blame a cop for shooting bad guy, but you blame bad guy for shooting a cop... fact they had same tactic, as a standalone fact have no meaning... :)

Relativism, depends who do you consider the good guy. But we all agree, both sides had offensive strategy, however with different measures. NATO ground doctrine was biased more towards defence, while naval forces were strictly offensive

Switek, I agree, the Soviet army was indeed always designed to break through and carry the battle deep to the enemy's rear, but this doesn't mean Stalin had plans to attack Hitler in the near future. He could do so many times, he was informed by the intelligence about the attack, but still didn't believe the reports were true. Anyway, I do not believe a single word on Suvorov's version of these events. His stories on GRU (Aquarium) is a different story.

Switek

09-30-2007, 07:41 AM

Again - explain at least in some details and examples.

My father was an line officer between 1966-1980 specialised in tactics of medium sized forces groups but from education bacground he was a tank commander.

He never, like people who he knew, I said: never practicised during field or staff trainings defensive scenarios during his whole career. If they used to train defence it was always treated as preparation for attack. He received intelligence info in special classified booklet (only for senior officers) about situation, geography, routes, bridges, and all changes of Northen Germany and Denmark.

I guess it was a plan of deep defence on enemy territory about half thousand km from the location of my father's unit.

Switek

09-30-2007, 07:46 AM

What the hell does it mean? Best defence is offence. That's something ALL countries learned looking at France during WWII.

After WW2 There was invented something different in western Europe (which hasn't been interested in any kind new war and offensive action): "efective deterrence".

Switek

09-30-2007, 07:55 AM

..., but this doesn't mean Stalin had plans to attack Hitler in the near future. He could do so many times, he was informed by the intelligence about the attack, but still didn't believe the reports were true...

As I stated before: we need to compare Suvorov's idea with sources which are still unavailable. I don't mean only Russian archives but also British for example.
Without this we can only speculate and develop diferent kind of histories which was based on stalinist propaganda/version/interpretation (*)

* to cross out not appropriate

Mamont

09-30-2007, 07:57 AM

My father [...] Home strories again... Is this some common polish thing to bring family stories as a proof of something? Any other sources, Switek? Maybe works of generals? Goverment-approved documents? Field manuals etc?

As I stated before: we need to compare Suvorov's idea with sources which are still unavailable. When last time you checked what archives were opened to public use, Switek? And remeber i asked you not only about suvorov's works but also comments on them?

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 08:07 AM

After WW2 There was invented something different in western Europe (which hasn't been interested in any kind new war and offensive action): "efective deterrence".

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The USSR also relied on effective deterrence, yet we are talking about a scenario where the war has already begun in theory. US land forces in Europe relied on defensive strategy *for the initial period of war*, since they knew that the best they could do was to try and contain the first echelon of Soviet land forces, until additional troops could be made available to fuel offensive operations.

Defense is always a temporary measure before offense simply to take away the initiative from the enemy, take the fight to his land and actually crush him. Victory is impossible without offense.

Switek

09-30-2007, 08:10 AM

There were held a presentation about two years ago by former MoD, Radek Sikorski.

Poland Was To Occupy West Germany Under Warsaw Pact Plan
Warsaw today

by Staff Writers
Warsaw (AFP) Apr 13, 2006
Polish troops were to have occupied West Germany in the event of a nuclear attack by the Warsaw Pact on western Europe, according to previously secret files made public in Poland Wednesday.

The plans were contained in 1,445 files about the Warsaw Pact -- the military alliance of the Soviet bloc which disbanded in 1991 -- handed Wednesday by the defence ministry to Poland's National Remembrance Institute, a body with charged with investigating Nazi-era and Communist-era crimes.

Under the plans, Polish troops were to "occupy German territory in several days, particularly German towns destroyed by a nuclear attack and exposed to strong radioactivity," deputy defence minister Aleksander Szczyglo said.

Up to half a million Polish soldiers were to take part in the military operation. They were to reach the French border in six days. Some 40 percent of Polish troops were expected by military experts to be either killed or injured.

One version of the plan, which was in force from the 1960s, was personally approved in 1976 by Poland's communist leader at the time, Edward Gierek, according to defence ministry officials.

Officials from the defence ministry and the National Remembrance Institute Wednesday also showed reporters a Polish plan of "aggressive operations" dating from 1980 which envisaged the use of 194 short-range tactical nuclear warheads.

"It's an operational plan which, fortunately, was never carried out," said the institute's president Janusz Kurtyka.

"But these documents allow us to deepen our knowledge of the Warsaw Pact," he added.

Defence minister Radoslaw Sikorski decided in January to make public Poland's secret Warsaw Pact files. However, 73 files still considered sensitive will be kept secret. Signed in the Polish capital in 1955, the pact grouped Moscow and its satellite states of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania in a military alliance to counter the perceived threat of NATO.

It was finally dissolved in 1991 after the collapse of communism in the region.

Source: Agence France-Presse

There are some articles in Polish but most of the documents are still restricted.

Mamont

09-30-2007, 08:37 AM

There were held a presentation about two years ago by former MoD, Radek Sikorski. There are some articles in Polish but most of the documents are still restricted. Switek, what don't you understand in the term "doctrine"?

daily666

09-30-2007, 08:52 AM

My father was an line officer between 1966-1980 specialised in tactics of medium sized forces groups but from education bacground he was a tank commander.

He never, like people who he knew, I said: never practicised during field or staff trainings defensive scenarios during his whole career. If they used to train defence it was always treated as preparation for attack. He received intelligence info in special classified booklet (only for senior officers) about situation, geography, routes, bridges, and all changes of Northen Germany and Denmark.

I guess it was a plan of deep defence on enemy territory about half thousand km from the location of my father's unit.

Yep, my dad was to invade Denmark too. :)

Switek

09-30-2007, 08:59 AM

Switek, what don't you understand in the term "doctrine"?

Do you mean what I underestand by a term "doctrine"? - Political or military, couse seems that I mixed those two terms. Nonetheless sooner or later we'll go to the basis: nature of Soviet Union - if it was peaceful or hostile. For me it was hostile. based on a mission of spreading revolution, communism socialism or whatever. But, as for me, from 1960's it was used instrumentaly but dominant position of USSR was a main goal of its leaders.

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 09:00 AM

After WW2 There was invented something different in western Europe (which hasn't been interested in any kind new war and offensive action): "efective deterrence".

I think I understand now. You have a very weird idea, that being prepared to to wage a war in an offensive, rather than defensive manner when at war is same as actually planning to start a war and is a proof of such intent.

Am I right here? Thus a person who is being attacked, should only block and parry, instead of hitting his enemy with all his strength?

daily666

09-30-2007, 09:07 AM

Guys, we've had already few discussions on the subject of who was more offensive during the cold war.

Both sides were prepared to wage a war, but because none ever started it, we can conclude that both had defensive strategies :).

In the long run we can see that all adversaries (NATO and WP), had different plans and strategies. Offensive and defensive. The whole WP doctrine was to reach Rheinland in 2 or 4 days (not sure how many though). The NATO doctrine was to inflict as much lossess as possible and thab counterattack.

Switek

09-30-2007, 09:31 AM

I think I understand now. You have a very weird idea, that being prepared to to wage a war in an offensive, rather than defensive manner when at war is same as actually planning to start a war and is a proof of such intent.

Am I right here? Thus a person who is being attacked, should only block and parry, instead of hitting his enemy with all his strength?

Western Europe, after WW2 had almost continuous period of economic prosperity with no political will to go to any war in the continent. There was only only aim: to preserve their achivements. Europe had no sufficient human resources to go for long term conventional war with WP. So idea was simple wheny youre attacked your enemy wil be hit in theat level he'd regret that and won't be able to consume his victory.

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 09:51 AM

Western Europe, after WW2 had almost continuous period of economic prosperity with no political will to go to any war in the continent. There was only only aim: to preserve their achivements. Europe had no sufficient human resources to go for long term conventional war with WP. So idea was simple wheny youre attacked your enemy wil be hit in theat level he'd regret that and won't be able to consume his victory.

I honestly have no idea what you are even talking about.

What does 'aim' have to do with 'military doctrine' and how can 'military doctrine' prove or disapprove any 'aim', since they aren't really related? Aims are political, that's where they belong. Doctrine is military.

We started off with Suvorov and you impressed me with your claims, that having units train for offensive actually proves that a country is hostile, while it doesn't really prove anything of the sort, only that in terms of war a country would actually try to win the initiative.

Switek

09-30-2007, 10:17 AM

If political aim is to spreade revolution the military doctrine assumes that future wars will be conducted on enemy territories so armed forces must invest in offensive stuff and all kind of military activity is planned outside home. Political aims of SU was in my opinion hostile. The key was to sandbag other states, societes to accept soviet economic and political system. This was a key for soviet communists since 1919 till 1956.

After 1960/1970's when it stated clear that SU isn't able to compete with West due inefficiency of communist economic system the idea was to preserve Soviet dominium but military doctrine remained offensive.

MZKT

09-30-2007, 10:35 AM

If political aim is to spreade revolution the military doctrine assumes that future wars will be conducted on enemy territories so armed forces must invest in offensive stuff and all kind of military activity is planned outside home. Political aims of SU was in my opinion hostile. The key was to sandbag other states, societes to accept soviet economic and political system. This was a key for soviet communists since 1919 till 1956.

Where's the difference to US policy here? It also tried to spread it's influence all over the world, invested in offensive weapons, sandbaged not US-aligned states to accept US economic and political system. Is it hostile? No, it's just what superpowers do. Regardless of idealistic "communism/democracy for the whole world through peace" claims in the media.

After 1960/1970's when it stated clear that SU isn't able to compete with West due inefficiency of communist economic system the idea was to preserve Soviet dominium but military doctrine remained offensive.

Offensive doctrine to preserve soviet dominion? How's that? SU fought by far less wars since WW2 then USA.

Switek

09-30-2007, 10:47 AM

Where's the difference to US policy here? It also tried to spread it's influence all over the world, invested in offensive weapons, sandbaged not US-aligned states to accept US economic and political system. Is it hostile? No, it's just what superpowers do. Regardless of idealistic "communism/democracy for the whole world through peace" claims in the media.

The problem of the US is that it forget about its democratic values outside the country. But the idea of "containing communism" was a clever justification for them.

Offensive doctrine to preserve soviet dominion? How's that? SU fought by far less wars since WW2 then USA.

Imagine that Brezhnev admited that SU was not able to compete with the West. Political suicide (literaly) for him. The soviet war machine was designed to conquer not to defend.

Asheren

09-30-2007, 12:55 PM

I had opportunity while in army to read some books from communist period about tactic and doctrine. Most of them adivsed to attack whenever it was possible even in defence. Defence especialy static defence was considered to be on weaker position due to lack of mobility, vunerability to:
guided munition strikes
outmanouvering especialy by airmobile units
strategical and tactical NBC weapons(this was considered most serious disadvantage)

Mamont

09-30-2007, 03:12 PM

After 1960/1970's when it stated clear that SU isn't able to compete with West due inefficiency of communist economic system Hm, i think that judging about economical system from the stand between one country and others combined is pure sillyness. In fact SU proved that planned economy is a very good idea. To bring out country out of ruins twice on a relatively small period and provide adequate wellfare for the population along with developing very hard regions of the country with pushing sports, science and education while climbing to be the one of the two major forces on the planet is preatty spectacular. The system had flaws, but the goverment became too feeble and clumsy to correct them.

the idea was to preserve Soviet dominium but military doctrine remained offensive. Switek, i see that without at least some facts backing your opinion you turned to slogans, but answer why SU didn't built airctraft carriers for example - a pure offensive weapons? And why there were so little involmenents of the soviet army in post war conflicts?

Switek

09-30-2007, 03:56 PM

Hm, i think that judging about economical system from the stand between one country and others combined is pure sillyness. In fact SU proved that planned economy is a very good idea. To bring out country out of ruins twice on a relatively small period and provide adequate wellfare for the population along with developing very hard regions of the country with pushing sports, science and education while climbing to be the one of the two major forces on the planet is preatty spectacular. The system had flaws, but the goverment became too feeble and clumsy to correct them.

I can't find any comparative data but I'm curios when Soviet Union reached the level of the economy of tzar's Russia in 1913. The rest is really pure speculation, true. But do not accuse me for using slogans while you do. SU has never proved that planned economy is a very good idea, I'd say something opposite. :)

Switek, i see that without at least some facts backing your opinion you turned to slogans, but answer why SU didn't built airctraft carriers for example - a pure offensive weapons? And why there were so little involmenents of the soviet army in post war conflicts?

Dou you mean Joseph Stalin Aircraft? p-). Ok it was joke but the real reason is that after WW2 SU was able to create its naval power. Aircrafts have remainded far away from soviet economical and technical abilities till 1980's.

No there weren't actions like in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, military instructors in ME, Africa, Vietnam, Latin America and huge military support for some antiimperialist regimes and "liberation" movements...

Mamont

09-30-2007, 06:08 PM

I can't find any comparative data but I'm curios when Soviet Union reached the level of the economy of tzar's Russia in 1913.

Switek, it's really interesting how you're trying to argue something in matters that are totally unknown to you. Speaking of 1913's Russia please do provide some info for the audience here. Compare healthcare, education, GDP, export/import... You know the drill. I'm waiting in anticipation... Also you can provide data for the following years untill 1917..

do not accuse me for using slogans while you do. Switek, don't blame others for your sins...

after WW2 SU was able to create its naval power. Aircrafts have remainded far away from soviet economical and technical abilities till 1980's.Oh, man. Don't embarass yorself... If you actually knew about soviet doctrine and related subjects, you'd have the answer in no time...

No there weren't actions like in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, military instructors in ME, Africa, Vietnam, Latin America and huge military support for some antiimperialist regimes and "liberation" movements...Slogans again... Do you actually don't see the differences? Do you actually know number of soldiers and casualties? Or is this simply another of your delusions?

MZKT

09-30-2007, 07:29 PM

Imagine that Brezhnev admited that SU was not able to compete with the West. Political suicide (literaly) for him. The soviet war machine was designed to conquer not to defend.

If the soviet war machine was designed to conquer instead of defense, why was the majority of purely offensive weapons possesed by the NATO and not WarPac? SU had no carriers and a smaller strategic bomber fleet then USA. WarPac operated far less bases outside of it's alliance then NATO. SU didn't hold a whole continent under control like USA with South America.

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 08:13 PM

This forum is supposed to be a military forum.

What the hell is this crap about 'offensive weapons'? All weapons are offensive. All weapons are defensive.

Its all about strategy, not weapons.

Doublethinker

09-30-2007, 08:21 PM

If political aim is to spreade revolution the military doctrine assumes that future wars will be conducted on enemy territories so armed forces must invest in offensive stuff and all kind of military activity is planned outside home.

That is terribly, catastrophically incorrect. I'm simply shocked to hear such an opinion from a person with experience in the military. Whether the doctrine assumes that future wars will be conducted on enemy terriories or on its own territory while surely has some connection to overall country agressiveness, first and foremost depends on the way the country itself is viewing the war and its conduct, whether the country is capable of organizing an efficient strike force or not in terms of technology, industry, supply and manpower.

Defense in essence is always a TEMPORARY measure for countries that are actually planning to win a possible war, since it always must be followed by a counter-offensive, which will transfer the war to enemy territory sooner or later.

The Soviet doctrine always emphasized an enemy attack following a decisive and lethal counter strike (in Europe, that is).

Asheren

10-01-2007, 08:44 AM

Few things to think about when considering lack of aircraft carriers and lower number of strategic bombers.
1. Russia geographical location
2. Geopolitical situation and Russian areas of intrests.
3. Russian carriers would be underpowerd for a long time due to technical gap and lack of experience in carrier warfare tactic.
4. NATO fighter aircrafts were generaly considered superior in tech and training compared to soviet. Causulties amongst russian strategic bombers could be extremly high compared to their efficency. Submersible, mobile and stationary ICMB launchers were much more efficient and easier to hide.

Flamming_Python

10-01-2007, 11:55 AM

4. NATO fighter aircrafts were generaly considered superior in tech and training compared to soviet

Since when? Perhaps with the earlier models, but surely not around the time the Su-27's, MiG-29's, MiG-31's started to make an appearance?

Mamont

10-01-2007, 04:56 PM

Few things to think about when considering lack of aircraft carriers and lower number of strategic bombers.
1. Russia geographical location
Indeed. To reach targets 5k km away SU doesn't need bombers, yes? To catch a US CVBG is easier with what? To provide support and cover for naval operations is easyer with ICBMs?

2. Geopolitical situation and Russian areas of intrests.
Indeed again. Care to specify those areas and how they are relevant to the lack of bombers and carriers?

3. Russian carriers would be underpowerd for a long time due to technical gap and lack of experience in carrier warfare tactic.
All came with experience. How this is relevant to the absence of carriers? How in this picture fits building of an air-carrying missile cruisers?

4. NATO fighter aircrafts were generaly considered superior in tech and training compared to soviet. So what? Your logic is: if they are inderior, then why build them at all? Then why build airforce anyway?

Causulties amongst russian strategic bombers could be extremly high compared to their efficency. That is fully equal to the US bombers. So?

Submersible, mobile and stationary ICMB launchers were much more efficient and easier to hide. You probably don't know about "shadowing" of submarines, visual recon satellites, and what it is to hide a missile silo(hint - defence of silos usually lies in something other, than camouflage).