 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Serb, by the way, it's simply undeniable that the main US contingent, the 8th Division, was originally sent to Russia for the singular purpose of evacuating the Czech Legion, not for the purpose of "plunder 'n conquest" - although, for the record, the Czech Legion was doing a pretty good job on its own of taking over the Trans-Siberian Railroad  |
As for me it's obvious that USA didn't want any Russia, not White, not Red.
As for me it's obvious that main purpose behind foreign intervention was to "devide'n plunder" while Russians were busy killing each other. And for USA, to gain control over Trans-Siberian railroad was number one goal to achieve this purpose. If Czechs or Japanese can do it - fine, it will reduce US casualties. US of A always looking for someone to do all dirty work for them.
Last edited by Serb on 08-03-2004 at 18:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
I call more bullshit. Stalin was primarily and exclusively concerned for the interests of the Soviet Union, as he saw them, and those interests did not include a free Poland.
|
They may not have included a free Poland, but they at least included big and reasonably strong Poland. Allies could not care significantly less about Poland.
quote:
The British were really the only ones with any concern for the Polish, but those concerns were overridden by British interests and the current political situation. |
Using Poland as a bargaining chip in Yalta and Potsdam illustrates rather nicely just how deep Anglo-American concern for Poland was.
quote:
The US wanted Soviet participation against Japan, and both the US and British (especially the British, who were breaking up entire regiments and divisions by the end of the war to provide replacements for others) were extremely concerned with casualties. The end of the war was not in question, even without the Soviet Union, and the interest of the Allies was to minimize casualties.
|
And this relates to Poland... how?
If "the end of the war was not in question, even without the SU" why is that "the US wanted Soviet participation against Japan". You contradict yourself.
quote:
Oh, and if Stalin was so interested in the fate of the Poles, then explain Katyn Forest. |
Oooh I am so deeply impressed with your encyclopedic knowledge of Eastern European history. Again, prey tell, how does this relate to the issue of post-WW2 Poland?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
As for asses kicked...I find it more likely that with the war in Germany over and a new adminstration in the States (and, with an half-assed commmitment to begin with), we said "f--k it" and went home. We didn't run home with our tails between our legs, in fact, we haven't done that ever. |
Vietnam?
Somalia, just recently?
I keep forgetting though that according to modern American history US *won* in Vietnam. It's just the troops said "f--k it" and went home because of an "half-assed commitment".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
Serb,
quote:
Who said I don't see anything wrong with Soviet invasion of Poland or Finland?
I see something wrong there, but much less than with foreign intervention in Russian civil war. |
Why? I mean, come on - the legitimately recognized government of Russia, which was a major ally of the Allied nations, and still fighting in WW1, asked for foreign assistance in putting down internal unrest. It's not as if Britain went off on its own and invaded, like the Soviets did to Finland, for example.
quote:
Soviets obviuosly backstabed Poland (the country they considered their enemy number 1 in 30's) to return the lands Poles stole from Soviets in 1920-1921. |
We can go back and forth about this for a long time. Here's my version:
After various skirmishes throughout 1919, Poland invaded the Ukraine (Polish-Ukrainian War). The Soviet Union responsed by invading Poland and drove to the Vistula, where they were DECISIVELY defeated. The war (well, both wars) were ended by the Treaty of Riga, in which Poland gained western Byelorussia and some Ukrainian territory (the remainder of which was gobbled into the Soviet Union).
If Poland stole land, as a result of their victory, then the Soviet Union also stole land by virtue of their victory in WW2. If the Soviet Union did not steal land, then Poland didn't either. Again, you don't get to have it both ways.
quote:
You mean one of the leaders of gangs of Whites asked you too came here in Russia to plunder it? You mean Kolchak or anyone else send an invitation to American forces like:
"Hey Woody, could you please send some of your boys to steal something from here, to put some redasses in concentration camps and to finally devide Russia to at least five parts. Just think about it, we will have five small Russias, instead of one big.
p.s. and you can take Trans-Siberian railroad and Siberia, we don't need it anyway" |
 This was neither what was planned or what was done.
As for the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the Czech Legion had already essentially taken control of it and much of the surrounding territory (and there was an independent government in Siberia at the time, IIRC). Maybe we should have just dealt with them if we wanted the railroad
Oh, wait, that's right - dealing with the Czech Legion was the primary mission of the main US contingent anyway, and it wasn't to take control of a railroad, but to evacuate the Czechs
quote:
As for me it's obvious that USA didn't want any Russia, not White, not Red. |
The US didn't want a Bolshevik Russia (nor did anyone else, really). I don't know why you think the US was opposed to the existence of Russia itself, though 
quote:
And for USA, to gain control over Trans-Siberian railroad was number one goal to achieve this purpose. If Czechs or Japanese can do it - fine, it will reduce US casualties. |
GAH! The Czechs had ALREADY EFFECTIVELY DONE IT! The US came in not to take control of the railroad, but to get the Czechs OUT!
ErikM,
quote:
They may not have included a free Poland, but they at least included big and reasonably strong Poland. |
The only reason the Soviets wanted a big Poland was as a)a buffer between them and the rest of Europe, and b)a big satellite puppet government in which to station troops. The Soviets certainly did not want a strong Poland, or at least not an independently strong Poland. The Soviets were interested only in a Poland (yes, with a lot of territory) that was to be subordinated to Moscow.
The US and Britain wanted a free and independent Poland - and in fact, that's why Britain went to war in the first place.
quote:
Using Poland as a bargaining chip in Yalta and Potsdam illustrates rather nicely just how deep Anglo-American concern for Poland was. |
Oh, of course Britain and the US were primarily concerned with their own interests. I've never denied that. Poland basically got screwed, because the Soviets didn't want a free and independent Poland, and because the US and Britain weren't willing to make that a major divisive issue between them and the Soviets. Remember, the Britain and especially the US were extremely interested in post-war cooperation with the Soviet Union (Roosevelt's "Four Policemen" and all that).
quote:
If "the end of the war was not in question, even without the SU" why is that "the US wanted Soviet participation against Japan". You contradict yourself. |
I do no such thing. The US wanted Soviet participation so that the Soviets would have to fight the Kwangtung Army that the US mistakenly thought was still in Manchuria. It wasn't - it really existed only on paper, and most of the effective units and troops had been transferred elsewhere, but the US didn't know that at the time. The US didn't want Japan to be able to transport a million men to the Home Islands, just in time for a US invasion. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, just the number of casualties.
quote:
Oooh I am so deeply impressed with your encyclopedic knowledge of Eastern European history. Again, prey tell, how does this relate to the issue of post-WW2 Poland? |
Oh, I'm just being a smartass, to point out the fact that the Soviets didn't give two shits about the Poles, or anyone else, for that matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd The only reason the Soviets wanted a big Poland was as a)a buffer between them and the rest of Europe, and b)a big satellite puppet government in which to station troops. The Soviets certainly did not want a strong Poland, or at least not an independently strong Poland. The Soviets were interested only in a Poland (yes, with a lot of territory) that was to be subordinated to Moscow.
|
My original statement - which is buried somewhere deep inside this thread - was that without Stalin's participation Poland would likely end up with smaller post-WW2 territory than otherwise. Do you dispute that?
True, USSR was not interested in a strong and hostile Poland on its borders - well, name me a single country that would be interested in that 
As for the definition of "concern" for other countries, it
includes many things, for instance
(a) independence - USSR was not interested in Poland's ability to execute independent foreign policy, since, given the history of Russian-Polish relations, it would likely end up being hostile to USSR. UK/US had nothing to lose with the notion of independent Poland since, by the same very reasons, Poland would be drawn to their camp;
(b) democracy - nobody particularly cared. Poland's pre-war government was not exactly democratic in any case;
(c) economic/social welfare of Polish citizens - well, Stalin ended up being a humanitarian of sorts on this particular issue. The facts were that after Soviet Army march through E.Europe, Polish moved in and settled areas in Silesia/Eastern Prussia, driving out these ethnic Germans that have not fled before. Stalin basically wanted to legalize this staus-quo while ie Churchill thought that Polish had to leave these areas.
True, Stalin was only interested in Poland insofar as Poland could serve as a useful ally. But it is a nature of any alliance that its member coountries have at least some degree of concern for their partners. Thus, Stalin had some concern for their future Polish allies.
quote:
Remember, the Britain and especially the US were extremely interested in post-war cooperation with the Soviet Union (Roosevelt's "Four Policemen" and all that).
|
Yeah, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. IMO, FDR may have been genuinely interseted in US-Soviet cooperation but I have my doubts regarding Truman, Dalles & co.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
My original statement - which is buried somewhere deep inside this thread - was that without Stalin's participation Poland would likely end up with smaller post-WW2 territory than otherwise. Do you dispute that? |
No, I don't dispute that. But which is better? Having more territory, and having your nation being nothing more than a puppet/buffer zone for the Soviet Union, or having slightly less territory, and being free and independent?
quote:
True, USSR was not interested in a strong and hostile Poland on its borders - well, name me a single country that would be interested in that |
A free and independent Poland would not necessarily have been strong or hostile. Poland did not have the economy or industry to become strong, at least not for a long time, and I see no particular reason for Poland to be any more hostile to the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union was to Poland.
quote:
(a) independence - USSR was not interested in Poland's ability to execute independent foreign policy, since, given the history of Russian-Polish relations, it would likely end up being hostile to USSR. |
Hence, the Soviet Union was not interested at all in Poland, as you asserted, but rather, the Soviet Union was interested in the Soviet Union.
quote:
(b) democracy - nobody particularly cared. Poland's pre-war government was not exactly democratic in any case; |
That's true, yet the Atlantic Charter at least gave the impression that the US and Britain were interested in self-determination. Certainly it isn't in dispute that the US and Britain were far more interested in democracy and self-determination than the Soviet Union was.
quote:
(c) economic/social welfare of Polish citizens - well, Stalin ended up being a humanitarian of sorts on this particular issue. The facts were that after Soviet Army march through E.Europe, Polish moved in and settled areas in Silesia/Eastern Prussia, driving out these ethnic Germans that have not fled before. Stalin basically wanted to legalize this staus-quo while ie Churchill thought that Polish had to leave these areas. |
How is it "humanitarian" for Stalin to allow Poles to throw Germans out of their homes, and then resettle those areas? Would you also support the Israeli government in throwing the Palestinians and Arabs out of their homes, and moving in thousands of settlers?
quote:
True, Stalin was only interested in Poland insofar as Poland could serve as a useful ally. But it is a nature of any alliance that its member coountries have at least some degree of concern for their partners. |
But Poland and the Soviet Union weren't allies, at least not in the manner of the US and Britain. The Soviet Union told Poland what to do, and Poland either did it, or faced military reprisals.
quote:
IMO, FDR may have been genuinely interseted in US-Soviet cooperation but I have my doubts regarding Truman, Dalles & co. |
Truman was certainly interested in cooperation, until he realized that true cooperation was impossible, after the Soviets began reneging on agreements and showing that their sole concern was the maintenance and extension of Soviet power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
But which is better? Having more territory, and having your nation being nothing more than a puppet/buffer zone for the Soviet Union, or having slightly less territory, and being free and independent?
|
You gotta ask Poles. I know Heresson will interfere soon enough to put me straight, but Poles like more lands. They had a huge empire 400 years ago and, based on my conversations with Polish acquitances, still cannot get over losing it. Just like Russians probably will never get completely over losing Ukraine/Belarus.
And let's not automatically write off any Soviet-block country as a puppet state. USSR only intervened into their satellite domestic affairs when the situation was critical. Solidarnosc was allowed to exist for quite a long time before it was put down and only implicitly through Yaruzelsky. USSR actually denied several earlier request from Polish communists to intervene militarily.
You can of course argue that USSR should not have intervened at all, and I actually would agree, but - really - was Soviet intervention in Czech Republic or Hungary really that much different from ie Bay of Pigs?
What USSR really lacked was a good PR person. A couple of guys like George W campaign managers and CNN would tell us how Soviet tanks brought freedom and prosperity to Czech/Polish/Hungarian masses liberating them from cruel, oppressive, and WMD-developing regime of (insert name here).
Poland could not have an independent foreign policy during Soviet era, true, but... Well, I'll refrain from jokes on how ie UK has an indepentent foreign policy from Washington.
quote:
A free and independent Poland would not necessarily have been strong or hostile. Poland did not have the economy or industry to become strong, at least not for a long time, and I see no particular reason for Poland to be any more hostile to the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union was to Poland.
|
Not bloody likely. Russian-Polish hostility has a long and proud history. Did you know that Poland was allied with the Golden Horde during Mongol occupation of Russia? Well, things have never been much better ever since Livonian wars, Polish intervention during Russian Time of Troubles, endless Smolensk sieges, Khmelnitski revolt, Mazepa uprising, Silent Seim, Three Partitions, Warsaw uprising, Polish intervention in Russian Civil War... We have a long and beautiful relationship 
quote:
How is it "humanitarian" for Stalin to allow Poles to throw Germans out of their homes, and then resettle those areas? Would you also support the Israeli government in throwing the Palestinians and Arabs out of their homes, and moving in thousands of settlers?
|
I put humanitarian in quotes already so you did not have to do it again. Stalin did not "allow" Poles to throw Germans out. He was preoccupied elsewhere at this point in time. That's what happened though. I reckon the reason it happened was that everything in Poland was destroyed even more than in Germany, so Polish felt justified to do so both to feed their families and to revenge their former Nazi opressors. Put yourself in shoes of an average Polish citizen back then and imagine what you would do in such circumstances... Things were pretty different back then and I find Israeli-Arab analogies quite inappropriate.
quote:
Truman was certainly interested in cooperation, until he realized that true cooperation was impossible, after the Soviets began reneging on agreements and showing that their sole concern was the maintenance and extension of Soviet power. |
I disagree, but it will be like the whole another debate. If you want to open up a thread about it, I'd participate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
I gave a friend of my than book that detail the America Secect War in Northern Russia. First 1500 marine stay behind to try to overthrow the Soviet Government, which was one of the compection legitment government of Russia. The Soviet let then advance at first then they have than narrow fonet where they stop the marine who where have touble getting supplies as congress didnot know about this little secret war and after WWI congress cut all military sending to the bone. Then the Soviet use most of their force to win the Civil War. Germany recogine the Soviet Government in 1917 or 1918. That when Britian and France recogine the Soviet Union as the Legal government. Then the Soviet drove the America marine out of Russia. Thought out the 1920's there where small scale clask between Soviet and America forces in Siber.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
What I want to point out is that without Stalin's participation, Poland would likely end up with much smaller post-WW2 territory. Maybe it's ironic, but Stalin was the only person on Potsdam conference who actually had some concern for Polish. As I said earlier, Churchill thought that "Polish want too much" and Truman spent most of his time worrying how to break news of nuclear weapons to Stalin like a teenage girl going to her Prom dance.
True, Stalin probably wanted more lands for Poland because he planned on Poland being a Soviet ally in the post-WW2 Europe. But other allies largely had no concern for Poland at all.
|
I generally agree
quote:
I call more bullshit. Stalin was primarily and exclusively concerned for the interests of the Soviet Union, as he saw them, and those interests did not include a free Poland.
|
Of course not. But a vassal Poland - yes.
quote:
After various skirmishes throughout 1919, Poland invaded the Ukraine (Polish-Ukrainian War). The Soviet Union responsed by invading Poland and drove to the Vistula, where they were DECISIVELY defeated. The war (well, both wars) were ended by the Treaty of Riga, in which Poland gained western Byelorussia and some Ukrainian territory (the remainder of which was gobbled into the Soviet Union).
|
Not quite. First Ukrainians invaded Polish city of Lwow, Poles kicked them out of the region, but made an alliance with them to defend commonly. Then Soviets invaded and annexed most of Ukraine, and started planning invading Poland, so Poles and Ukrainians made a common expedition and liberated Ukrainian capital, Kiev/ Kijow, and then, Soviet offensive started. It was repelled over Vistula, but Poland wasn't quite able, and when it comes to some of its politicians, not quite willing, to continue the fight until Ukraine is liberated. And so, Ukraine remained under Soviet control.
quote:
The US and Britain wanted a free and independent Poland - and in fact, that's why Britain went to war in the first place.
|
Perhaps they wanted, but didn't do a thing to assure that, and eventually, offered Poland less than Stalin himself.
quote:
(b) democracy - nobody particularly cared. Poland's pre-war government was not exactly democratic in any case;
|
but the emmigration gouverment was.
quote:
reckon the reason it happened was that everything in Poland was destroyed even more than in Germany, so Polish felt justified to do so both to feed their families and to revenge their former Nazi opressors
|
Again, first it was settled by three Allies, and only after it, it was done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
* Kucinich wonders how CBH can glorify the USSR if he's a muslim extremist... |
Just stateing than historate fact of two. When the Government of the Cazar was overthrow than peroid of instatibion was created in which many faction claim to be the legimate government. Alot like what go on in Iraq right now.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2004 14:03
|