 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Serbs perspective = Stalin's propaganda ministry |
I thought everybody everywhere (including in Russia) recognized that Stalin was a brutal dictator and that once he had been dead for a couple years so people realized it was safe to speak out against his record. Has Serb ever said that Stalin was anything other than a brutal tyrant?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Are you sure he wasn't just joking about the fact that Stalin is dead whereas the other two are still very much alive and capable of mischief? I find it hard to imagine anybody seriously regarding Stalin as anything other than a ruthless amoral tyrant.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
I bet you'll change your opinion now.
Here we go, here we go, here we go again.
Russo-Polish war part 2529:
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Why? |
Ask yourselves.
quote:
Are You nuts? Versailles treaty created western boarder of Poland, not the eastern one. |
Pure bullsh!t. Antante recognized Poland's eastern frontiers to be up to Kerzon's line. West Ukraine and Beylorussia, you took later, were beyond the Kerzon's line.
quote:
It was a bluff in order to force Lithuania to open diplomatic relationships. Have we attacked it? |
Of course not, becuase USSR made it clear for you that he can sign military alliance with Lithuania in case of Polish agression.
quote:
My God, does anyone else know about it! Poland rules the world! It is the only one who forced everyone to accept Muenchen treaty!
Is it what they learn You at school? |
Keep dreaming about rulling the world, warrior-pope. Poland doesn't rule the world and never will, however its actions provoked WW2.
quote:
First of all, it was shortly BEFORE Muenchen treaty. |
My mystake, I admit. It was when Germany annexed Austria. March 10 Polish soldier was killed on Polish-Lithuania frontier, Poland decline Lithuanian proposal for joint investigation and start to prepare for war. March 12 Hitler moves forces to Austria. March 16 and March 18 Polish ambassador in SU called to Kremlin where Soviet foreign minister made it clear for him that USSR can sign military agreement with Lithuania in case of Polish attack. France tries to calm down Polnad and tries to get right of passage for Soviet troops through Polish territory in case of war vs. Germany. Poland declines. For France it means possible war vs. USSR, since Poland is the ally of France. In such sircumstances France and UK do not react to German annexion of Austria, despite they had to.
quote:
Secondly, Poland only took back part of what Tchechoslovakia anected by force shortly after ww1, when Poland was fighting against Soviets and was not able to protect its backs. |
Well, well, well, so, when Poland on pair with Hitler participate in division of Czechoslovakia it's Ok, because Poles took only parts that Czechs took away from Poland earlier, but when Soviets do the same with Poland, because of absolutely the same reasons it is not Ok. It's f*cking agression of f*cking barbarians against an angel-like, innocent Poland.
quote:
Thirdly, Soviets were hostile to Poland.
Would You let Chineese armies through to Europe anyway?
|
1) Poland was hostile to Soviets. Soviets gave Poland independence when they took power and it is Poland who attacked Soviets in 1920, not the other way around. In early 30's USSR signed trade agreement with all countries of the world...except its neighbour Poland, who refused to sign such agreement. Poland was hostile towards USSR, not USSR towards Poland. The responsibility of hostality between our countries lays on Poland's shoulders.
2) Of course I would let Chineese to go through Russian territory if we have a military alliance. You seem to do not understand that right of passage, doesn't mean Cheense armies can go through our territory in battle formations- It means they can transport their armies through our territory via railways etc. Transported armies are not 100% combat ready. You can't get out of the train and start to fight efficiently. You can destroy an army which have been transported, pretty easy- cut its supply route, envelop and destroy. Besides, Stalin wasn't an idiot. Had he signed military alliance with UK, France and Poland vs. Germany he would never did something against the Poland and thus invlove USSR into war vs. Poland, Uk, France and Germany at once. Don't you understand this?
quote:
Who said so? Serb... Serb... Serb... |
Wrong. Your foreign minister Beck said this.
From diary of Ribbentrop about his talks with foreign minister of Poland- Beck in 1939:
January 6, Munich. I asked Beck is it possible that Polnad could join the anti-comintern pact one day. Beck explained that currently it is not possible. The activity of Commintern presecuted by police in Poland. In accordance with Beck's words, Poland do everything to cooperate with us in fight against Commintern in feild of police measures, but if she will sign a political agreement with Germany about this, she couldn't sustain peacefull relationships with Russia. However, Beck promised that Polish future policy about this subject could develop in favorable to us direction. I asked Beck- do they give up ambition aspirations of marshal Plisudsky about claims upon Ukraine. He replied me with the smile that they already were in Kiev and that aspirations undoubtedly still alive today.
January 26, Warsaw. Mr. Beck didn't conceal that Poland pretend to Soviet Ukraine and access to Black sea, however he pointed to some dangers for Poland that will arise in case if Poland sign treaty with Germany against USSR. Mr. Beck said he will think about that more.
quote:
Alliance with germany was not possible not only because Poland didn't want the war, but also because Germany wanted Gdańsk as a part of the deal.
And if Poland wanted more lands, it would have taken them in Riga 1921. It took much less than Soviets offered it. |
Danzig didn't belong to Poland at the first place. It wasn't your land. It was a city-state with its own government. 95% of its 400 000 population were Germans. They had their own currency- gulden, not your Zloty. Poland and Danzig had custom alliance. USSR established diplomatic relationships with Danzig in 1924. Show me the treaty which says that Danzig is Polish territory. Show it to me. You CONCIDERED it was your city, thus ignored the league of nations, but it doesn't mean IT WAS your city.
quote:
Defensive alliance only
|
Of course, defensive alliance against USSR.
quote:
Are You saying Poland wanted to get some Romanian land? Serb, this is absurd. Romania was our ally. |
Your ally against USSR, not Germany.
quote:
What do you expect? Poland always had more sobre attitude towards Soviets than Britain and France. Soviets wanted to grab Polish territory (and did it fas and nefas). Guaranties? We've seen how much they were worth after the defeat of Germany. Poland would have ended under Soviet occupation, and I doubt France or Britain would do anything about it. |
Wait a minute, so it was USSR who attacked Poland in 1920, not Poland who attacked USSR?
Get your facts straight- IT WAS POLAND WHO ATTACKED SOVIETS IN 1920, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This is fact and it proves that it was you who wanted Soviet lands, not the other way around.
And once again, Stalin wasn't an idiot to fight against Germany, UK, France and Poland combined. It took five years and millions of lives for USSR+USA+UK+France to defeat Germany. Who in his straight mind would fight agaist Germany, UK,France, Poland ALONE?
NOBODY.
quote:
All is so nice in your picture, but why did this non-agression pact contain clausures about division of Poland? |
It didn't. Yes, you get me right. IT DID NOT.
First of all, nobody ever seen the original of this secret protocal, only copies that were "slightly" edited by Yakovlev and his gang of "historians". Next, where in this "edited" (you should read fake protocol) protocol part about division of Poland or joint military action against Poland? WHERE? Show it to me. If division of Poland and annexation of Baltic states were part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal, why the hell Hitler wrote in his note to Soviet government about German declaration of war over USSR:
"Occupation and bolshivization by Soviet governmnet of the territory of Eastern Europe and Balkans, passed by government of Reich to Moscow as sphere of influence, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS WITH MOSCOW'S AGREEMENTS".
quote:
And what could USSR be afraid of? Without territory of Poland, germany could not effectively fight Soviets |
When Hitler thought about the war with Poland he didn't think about annexation of Poland. He couldn't imagine you'll fight like you did. He said to bosses of his party and ministers at August 28, 1939- "Danzig and resolution of question about corridor- it's minimal which allows Germany to keep its face. Maximum demands- in accordance with situation. It will be a very hard war, perhaps hopeless, but unitill I alive there will be no capitulation."
But already at Sept.10, Halder wrote in his diary- "the success of our forces is fabulous".
When Poles ask for chease fire at Sept.7 Halder wrote in the same diary- "Poles offer to start negotiations. We are ready for negotiations on the following conditions: Poland breaks with UK and France; the rest of Poland will remain; areas beoynd Narev, including Warsaw - to Poland; industrial area- to us; Krakow- to Poland; northern outskirt Beskidov- to us; areas of Western Ukrain- INDEPENDENT."
So, where did you get the idea that Hitler wanted to annex entire Poland to use it as bridgehead for invasion against USSR? When he or any of his generals or ministers said this?
And notice- "Western Ukrain- independednt" part. How the hell it could be, if that it was one of the German conditions for negotiations about peace with Poland, if you believe that in accordance with MR pact, Soviets should take this part of Poland for themselves? What is it- Halder didn't know about the pact or pact didn't contained a word about Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine?
As for how Hitler could fight vs. Soviets without territory of Poland-
1) through Baltic states
2) through Slovakia->Hungary->Romania, plus Polish army would figh on his side and some German armies would attack from territory of Poland.
quote:
If You don't know, Polish gouverment was supposed to be moved, and was moved first to Paris, later to London, and took part in later part of the war. Your words is silly SOviet propaganda, Serb. |
Truth hurts, Heresson? Is it so hard to admit that your government was just a bunch of cowards?
Stalin didn't escape his capital when Germans were just several kilometers away. French governmnet didn't escape Paris when Germans entered it. Hitler didn't escaped Berlin when Soviets entered it in 1945. Nobody was such cowards as your government was. They escaped their capital after five days of war, when Germans were hundreds of kilometers away. You call it Soviet propaganda? I call it undeniable fact. Try to prove me wrong by proving that your president Mositzky didn't escape Warsaw at Sept.1 and your governmnet didn't escape Warsaw at Sept. 5.
Sure they did. For France it was necessity to keep Polnd alive, because otherwise they had to face all German army alone.
In may 19, 1939 France and Poland signed secret military protocol, in August 25, 1939, UK gave guarnties to Poland. In case of German agression towards Poland, France had to bomb German military objects and lauch few military operations with limited goals against German west front. After 15th day of mobilization, France had to launch wide offence with major forces. UK and France declared mobilization at Sept.1, at Sept. 3 they declared war over Germany. At Sept 5 France launched this military operation with limited goals- their troops advanced in 25km wide area Shpihern-Hornbach to 7-8km depth into German territory.
But they were not in aware that their ally Poland already surrendered then. Yes, already, after 5 days of war.
At Sept. 3 the head of Polish army marshal Rydz-Smigly (what a fascinating name) gave order to his army (however this order was sent to troops at Sept. 5) to do not retreat to the east, but retreat to the south, to Romanian frontier.
He ordered full-scale retreat on third day of war! Furthermore, he ordered to retreat south instead of east. You know how it calls? It calls capitulation or incredible, astonishing, amazing incompetence. According to this order, instead of retreat to east (away from advancing Germans heading to west) to protect their capital, Polish troops should go south ACROSS advancing German forces. Instead of retreat to Warsaw where they could hold their defensive positions using natural obstacles- rivers Narev, Visla, San and fortresses: Vilno, Grodno, Osovetz, Lomja, Ostrolenka, Rojany, Pooltusk, Zagrdj, Modlin, Warsaw, Demblin build by Russians proir WW1 to fight Germans, they retreated south where there were no fortreses or natural obstacles. But there was border with Romania where they could surender to Romanians. The brilliant order, isn't it?
Let's see what von Manstein wrote about that- "Poles had no choice, but to remove their defensive positions beyond the Bobr-Narev-Visla-San, (and perhaps Dunaets) line. This line was a strong natural obstacle, besides former Russian fortifications, despite being obsolete, still could serve as good defensive points".
So, in Sept 5 French, in accordance with their agreement with Poles, start its local offensive operation with limited goals. At the same day the head of Polish army send order to his troops- retreat South. Basicaly, Poles surendered without a fight. They had to retreat west, beyond Narev-Visla-San rivers and hold Germans there, thus win some time, only two weeks for French to complete mobilization, but they didn't. They run south to surrender to allied Romanians. France entered this war because of Poland and Poland betrayed France. What the hell French should do when their mobilization was complete? Launch a full-scale offence like they planned? What for? Polish army didn't exist already, thanks to the briliant order of marshal Rydz-Smigly. And French just stayed in their fortresses.
quote:
It is disgusting Soviet propaganda, Serb. Be ashamed of it. First of all, the division of Poland was foreseen by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact already. |
It wasn't. See above.
quote:
Secondly, that a gouverment leaves a territory of the state, it doesn't mean that the state ceases to exist. |
How state can exist without its government?
USSR made several attempts to connect with your governmnet, but even your ambassador in Moscow, had no idea where the hell is it.
quote:
It planned to move to Swierdlowsk |
Wow!!! You have a Polish name for Sverdlovsk? It's scares me. Let me guess, it's Polish city that should belong to Poland, right?
Anyhow, it planned to move to Kuibyshev, not Sverdlovsk. Planned, but didn't. Do you understand the difference between planned and moved? Do you understand the difference betweeen- to prepare evaquation of governmnet when Germans are already on outskirts of Moscow, a planned escape (which never happened actually) after a half of the year of war, AND escape from Warsaw on FIFTH DAY of war, when Germans were hundreds of kilometers away from it?
quote:
Propaganda, Serb. If the gouverment stayed, it'd have been killed by Germans.
It didn't "escape" just to save their lives.
They "escaped" to continue the fight in the west, which Poles did. |
It seems, you Poles are followers of the "fight better controlled from as far distance as possible" doctrine. Your governmnet run away from the country with tails between their legs, on fifth day of war, just to continue the fight from abroad. The head of your army, left his army and run with tail between his legs to the Brest fortress where he has NO connection with his forces, just to continue the fight?
Yeah, righ, how much can you give me for that fancy bridge, I have here for sale?
quote:
Churchill is no moral authority.
And, yes, this agression was rational. Rational and planned, Serb. |
Who recognized it as agression? Who said it was planned?
quote:
If You kill a person and no-one will dare to admit it, You still have killed a person.
You entered a territory of a foreign state, and started brutal occupation of it. It's an agression. |
You can't kill already dead person. When Red Army entered Western Ukraine and Beyolrussia, Polish state was already dead.
As for occupation, you would better shut up Heresson. The occupation was what you did there since 1921. Absolute majority of population of those lands were Ukranians and Byelorussinas. You attacked Soviets, took these lands and exploited and opressed 12 millions of our brothers for 18 years. When Red Army entered Western Ukraine and Beylorussia, Soviet soldiers were meet with flowers. Those lands immidiently joined USSR after referendum.
quote:
Because their alliance with Poland was only directed against Germany, and anyway, they didn't want to risk conflict with USSR |
Bullsh!t. They had plans to attack USSR for Finland. And Finland was not their ally.
quote:
Don't You forget that in 1939 Britain and France had to fight against Germany as well? |
I din't. It's you who missed that I already said this in my previous post. They were in war with Germany, when USSR attacked Finland in 1939, but made all preparations to attack USSR. It was one of the reasons why Stalin signed peace treaty with Finland, despite the Mannergeim's line was broken and road to Helsinky was open. However he decided to sign peace instead of "bring them socialism", because threat of war vs. allies was real and it was the last thing he wanted in light of incoming war vs. Germany.
So my question remains- why UK and France didn't delare (and didn't make any preparations, any plans of such war) war over USSR for Soviet enterance in Western Ukraine and Byelorussia?
Why USSR was expeled from the league of nations as country agressor, later, becuase of Finland, but its earlier action in Poland wasn't condemned by the league of nations?
quote:
Poland was a new state, that had to fight for its independance also against Soviets. |
What a bullsh!t. Perhaps you forgot that it was Soviets who gave you independence.
quote:
The treaty of Versailes didn't fix eastern boarders of Poland. Soviet gouverment was illegal, and Soviet state was not a successor of state of tzars. I think Lenin would've been offended by such insinuation. |
1) Bullsh!t. Eastern borders of Poland laid within Kerzon's line. But you violated Versailes treaty not only in regards of eastern borders. You took parts of Germany, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. Show me the treaty which allowed you to took the Lithuanian capitol- Vilnus. Do it.
2) Bullsh!t. Soviet government was a new government of Russia, recognized or not it doesn't matter. Who the hell gave you right to attack and occupy Ukraine? What Russian government?
3) Bullsh!t. Lenin's government replaced the governmnet of kerensky and it was it's successor. When Lenin took the power Russia didn't disappeared, it just gain new government. This government gave Poland independence, but it didn't gave right to Poland to attack Soviets and grab parts of Ukraine and Byelorussia.
quote:
Anyway, You annexed those lands from Poland. Poland ruled thse grounds before Russia did. |
Holy sh!t, what else should belong to Poland? Kiev? Moscow? St. Petersburg? Vladivostok perhaps?
Western Ukraine belonged to Ukraine, western Byelorussia belonged to Beylorussia. Absolute majority of population of these lands were Ukranians and Byelorussians. Ukraine and Beylorussia were among four co-founders of USSR. Those lands belonged to USSR. Simple as that.
quote:
Sorry, but Putin recognises Katyń as Soviet murder as well... |
Can you prove it? I never heard this. Anyhow, he doesn't study history, he makes history. There is a big difference.
Gorbachev, just repeated Guebel's propaganda. He invented nothing new.
And the cheif of Hitler's propaganda ministery is the last man whom I trust.
quote:
Serb, You live in a world of ilusions. |
Even if so, it's way better than to live in your world of lies and BS.
p.s. Have a nice day.
Last edited by Serb on 16-09-2004 at 15:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
Serb, if you don't mind,I have a few questions to help me to clarify my understanding of your positions.
If Iran had invaded Iraq while the US and its coalition were invading Iraq and Iran managed to occupy and lay claim to the eastern half of Iran would you have supported such an annexation as legal since the government of Iraq fled to a little hole in the ground under a shed? |
If Iraq had attacked Iran and grabbed parts of it and then later US attack Iraq and at the same time Iran move its forces to occupy lands which Iraq took from them earlier, I wouldn't mind.
Is it Iran's fault that Iraq attacked them and stole thier territories? Why it can't use the situation to return lands that righfully belong to Iran?
Heresson gave us few fascinating metaphors about robbing the house and killing the person.
I can give another metaphor:
Imagine two persons in 1921, person "P" and "S". Person S went complete crazy and start to fight with himself and at the same time gang of mofos attacked him to rob him and heal him from his madness permanently (more probably by killing him p). Person P usually lacks the balls to attack person S, but this time situation is extremely favorable for person P. So, person P attacks and able to defeat person S. As result of his victory person P tooks some of person S weapons.
Years passed. Person S defeated his madness and became a whole again. He also defeted gang of mofos who tried to kill him. Then in 1933 new person N was born, he immidiently declared that he is going to kill person S, because he don't like him and becuase he needs its house. Person S tried to create wide coalition against person N, but persons whom he offered to create alliance, such as persons U and person F were members of that gang who tried to kill him recently and they declined the offer. He offered alliance to person P, he declined it too. Then in 1939, person N attacked person P and killed him. Person S knowing that person N is going to kill him too, quickly explored the corpse of person P and took the weapons which person P stolen from person S in 1921. Person S thought like-"what the heck? it's my weapons after all, and I need it more than this dead mofo who stole it from me 18 years ago".
quote:
Did some of the horrible crimes attributed to Joseph Stalin actually occur? |
Yes.
quote:
For instance did he really sell Ukranian grain overseas in such quantities as to create an artifical famine amongst the Ukranians? |
He soldl grain to buy equipment needed to create heavy industry to prepare country for war vs. nazi. But it was only one of the reasons for famine.
quote:
What do you think of Poland wanting to enter a defense organization like Nato? |
1) It's a big mistake for US. Poland is worse ally one could have. Russians know this for sure, now it's your turn to find this out.
2) It's a big mistake for Poland. In case of war we will need a buffer zone to protect core Russia from land invasion. So basicaly we'll just nuke our neighbour NATO members, turn their lands into radiactive wasteland. And Poland will be the first.
quote:
Do you think they had justification for wanting to join such an alliance? |
They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
He said He prefers him to Gorbaczow or Jelcyn. |
Oh, just look again what I said:
Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev and their team of motherf*ckers ARE NOT my government.
And yes, I preffer to trust uncle Joe and to results of international investigation, than to cheif of Hitler's propaganda- Guebels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
I'm asking You
quote:
Pure bullsh!t. Antante recognized Poland's eastern frontiers to be up to Kerzon's line. West Ukraine and Beylorussia, you took later, were beyond the Kerzon's line.
|
It was not a part of the treaty.
quote:
Of course not, becuase USSR made it clear for you that he can sign military alliance with Lithuania in case of Polish agression.
|
LOL, USSR the grand saviour of Lithuania.
Why would Poland conquer Lithuania?
Anyway, You annexed it just a bit later
quote:
however its actions provoked WW2.
|
Yes, Poland provoked Hitler and Stalin! It was all Poland's fault!
quote:
In such sircumstances France and UK do not react to German annexion of Austria, despite they had to.
|
LOL. Yes, of course, Poland was responsible for Muenchen, Poland is responsible for anschluss, Poland is responsible for the start of ww2.
What's next? Are You really treating that seriously?
quote:
Well, well, well, so, when Poland on pair with Hitler participate in division of Czechoslovakia it's Ok, because Poles took only parts that Czechs took away from Poland earlier, but when Soviets do the same with Poland, because of absolutely the same reasons it is not Ok. It's f*cking agression of f*cking barbarians against an angel-like, innocent Poland.
|
No, it was a mistake. But ther is a difference. Poland took part of the disputed territory, consitituting less than 1% territory of Tchechoslovakia. Also, it did that without military activity, it did not replace the population, it did not mass - murder Tchechoslovakian officers etc., also, it did that without formal deal with Hitler, though indeed it profited from endangerement of Tchechoslovakia by him.
USSR entered by force, took half territory of Poland, including lands it never demanded, it started moving Polish population to Siberia, it murdered out large part of it including military officers, and it did that after a formal deal with Hitler.
quote:
1) Poland was hostile to Soviets. Soviets gave Poland independence when they took power
|
They didn't gave us anything. they accepted it.
quote:
and it is Poland who attacked Soviets in 1920, not the other way around.
|
If You hadn't planned a war through Poland to join revolution in Germany, and You hadn't let Polish spies get to know about it, Poland wouldn't have attacked.
If You find Chechen terrorists preparing an attack, would You leave them alone and wait for it or try to stop them?
quote:
The responsibility of hostality between our countries lays on Poland's shoulders.
|
And that's why Soviet propaganda depicted Pole as a greedy bug eating the harvest of Ukrainian and Byelorussian peasants?
And that's why Soviets were demanding "unification" of Byelorus and Ukraine?
And this is why USSR attacked Poland finally?
Poland couldn't make friends with USSR, as it would make Germans angry. Polish doctrine was equal distance to germans and Soviets
quote:
2) Of course I would let Chineese to go through Russian territory if we have a military alliance.
|
Well, Poland and SU didn't have an alliance
quote:
Transported armies are not 100% combat ready. You can't get out of the train and start to fight efficiently.
|
Stalin didn't want just right of passage before the war. He wanted Soviet armies to station in Poland, and exactly - in the regions He later annexed
quote:
Had he signed military alliance with UK, France and Poland vs. Germany he would never did something against the Poland and thus invlove USSR into war vs. Poland, Uk, France and Germany at once. Don't you understand this?
|
This thinking is right only when You assume He really wanted this alliance, and that France and Britain would fight against USSR if it did anything to Poland.
quote:
Wrong. Your foreign minister Beck said this.
|
You should be ashamed to believe such primitive propaganda
1) those "diaries" were surely published under USSR, and were serving Soviet interests
2) Do You think Polish ministry of foreign affairs would tell Soviet one: "yes, we'll join an alliance against You, just not now. And yes, we want to take part of Your territory"
Please, I've never seen such COMPLETELY thoughtless propaganda
Not to mention that Germany offered Poland alliance against Soviets and Germany as a loot, and Poland refused.
quote:
Danzig didn't belong to Poland at the first place.
|
Who said it did?
Poland had special rights in Free City of Gda?sk. It was kind of Polish fief, as one may say
quote:
Of course, defensive alliance against USSR.
|
Yes. USSR had territorial aspirations against both Poland and Romania. And it realised them later on
quote:
Your ally against USSR, not Germany.
|
And what? That means we'd grab its territory?
The boarder with Romania was very stable, only minor changes were made since XIV century. Poland had no interests and no will to change it.
quote:
IT WAS POLAND WHO ATTACKED SOVIETS IN 1920, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This is fact and it proves that it was you who wanted Soviet lands, not the other way around.
|
Not at all. Soviets were planning world revolution these days and wanted to roll through Poland to achieve that
quote:
It didn't. Yes, you get me right. IT DID NOT.
|
Sorry to disappoint You Serb, but it did.
quote:
"Occupation and bolshivization by Soviet governmnet of the territory of Eastern Europe and Balkans, passed by government of Reich to Moscow as sphere of influence, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS WITH MOSCOW'S AGREEMENTS".
|
To have a reason to start the war?
quote:
"Danzig and resolution of question about corridor- it's minimal which allows Germany to keep its face. Maximum demands- in accordance with situation. It will be a very hard war, perhaps hopeless, but unitill I alive there will be no capitulation."
|
Hitler must've been mad to say something like this. I doubt this is authentic.
quote:
So, where did you get the idea that Hitler wanted to annex entire Poland to use it as bridgehead for invasion against USSR? When he or any of his generals or ministers said this?
|
1) I doubt your information
2) It was You who claimed this: You said USSR had to enter eastern Poland so that Germans wouldn've taken it
quote:
And notice- "Western Ukrain- independednt" part. How the hell it could be, if that it was one of the German conditions for negotiations about peace with Poland, if you believe that in accordance with MR pact, Soviets should take this part of Poland for themselves? What is it- Halder didn't know about the pact or pact didn't contained a word about Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine?
|
1) Your info may be wrong
2) Perhaps Hitler wanted to break the deal with You
quote:
1) through Baltic states
2) through Slovakia->Hungary->Romania, plus Polish army would figh on his side and some German armies would attack from territory of Poland.
|
Poland had no intentions in fighting Soviets.
War through Baltic states wouldn't be possible because of Polish Pomerania ("the Corridor" if You will)
War through Romania? Just because Romania is adjactent to USSR doesn't mean it would be a good start.
It'd mean more transportation problems in a land with weak infrastructure
quote:
Truth hurts, Heresson? Is it so hard to admit that your government was just a bunch of cowards?
|
Serb, Polish gouverment existed in London up to the fall of communism. And during the war it was fighting on Allied side; Poles took important part in the battle of England.
quote:
Stalin didn't escape his capital when Germans were just several kilometers away.
|
Soviet terrotory is huge, and Stalin always had where to back off too.
quote:
French governmnet didn't escape Paris when Germans entered it.
|
Yes, They surrendered and started collaborating.
quote:
Hitler didn't escaped Berlin when Soviets entered it in 1945.
|
Where could He escape too?
quote:
Sure they did. For France it was necessity to keep Polnd alive, because otherwise they had to face all German army alone.
|
The problem was that they did not strike. They waited few miles behind the boarder.
quote:
At Sept 5 France launched this military operation with limited goals- their troops advanced in 25km wide area Shpihern-Hornbach to 7-8km depth into German territory.
|
Wow, what a strike!
quote:
Rydz-Smigly (what a fascinating name) gave order to his army (however this order was sent to troops at Sept. 5) to do not retreat to the east, but retreat to the south, to Romanian frontier.
|
That's not true, deary
quote:
Let's see what von Manstein wrote about that- "Poles had no choice, but to remove their defensive positions beyond the Bobr-Narev-Visla-San, (and perhaps Dunaets) line. This line was a strong natural obstacle, besides former Russian fortifications, despite being obsolete, still could serve as good defensive points".
|
And that was exactly what was supposed to be done.
Though I would understand if it was otherwise - all major Polish industrial centers are west to that
quote:
How state can exist without its government?
USSR made several attempts to connect with your governmnet, but even your ambassador in Moscow, had no idea where the hell is it.
|
Serb, the gouverment existed; it existed up to the end of communism, as I mentioned.
And even if it did not, that would't be a good excuse anyway
There is no gouverment of Somalia. Can all its neighbours annect a part they like?
quote:
Wow!!! You have a Polish name for Sverdlovsk? It's scares me. Let me guess, it's Polish city that should belong to Poland, right?
|
Siberian cities have Polish names, simply because Russians and Soviets forced many Poles to live there
[qupte]
Planned, but didn't.
[/quote]
Because it didn't have to
quote:
AND escape from Warsaw on FIFTH DAY of war, when Germans were hundreds of kilometers away from it?
|
Actually, they were closing in, and Warsaw is on the western side of Vistula
quote:
Who recognized it as agression? Who said it was planned?
|
Nearly all historians of the world, just not Soviet ones and the ones in the lands dominated by them?
quote:
You can't kill already dead person. When Red Army entered Western Ukraine and Beyolrussia, Polish state was already dead.
|
Again and again: Polish gouverment still existed. Polish army still existed, and they existed later on on allied territory
quote:
As for occupation, you would better shut up Heresson. The occupation was what you did there since 1921. Absolute majority of population of those lands were Ukranians and Byelorussinas.
|
It depends on the region. Woly?, Polesie and Stanislawow wojewodztwa were indeed majorly not Polish. And what?
quote:
Soviet soldiers were meet with flowers. Those lands immidiently joined USSR after referendum.
|
SOVIET referendum. Do You know that they had a bad
habit of forging ones?
Also, there were much less than 12 mln Ukrainians and Byelorussians in Poland. And they are our brothers too.
Anyway, I'm sure Ukrainians under Great Famine
were very happy of their glorious Soviet masters
quote:
Bullsh!t. They had plans to attack USSR for Finland. And Finland was not their ally.
|
Did they attack?
Anyway, Soviets had German ally when it comes to Poland. Also, it is much easier to help Finland. It had natural boarders and long coast.
quote:
Why USSR was expeled from the league of nations as country agressor, later, becuase of Finland, but its earlier action in Poland wasn't condemned by the league of nations?
|
because it was a second agressions Soviets have made?
And because Polish gouverment wasn't officially in a war against Soviets?
quote:
What a bullsh!t. Perhaps you forgot that it was Soviets who gave you independence.
|
They stated Poland has a right for independance, that's far from giving it.
quote:
1) Bullsh!t. Eastern borders of Poland laid within Kerzon's line.
|
Which was not a part of Versailles treaty
quote:
You took parts of Germany
|
According to an allied judgement....
because Czechoslovakia has taken it from us earlier. And no force was used, anyway
It was a mistake, perhaps Poland should just have forced Czechoslovakia to give them autonomy or ask Allies to settle this thing, or return to the idea of plebiscite on those grounds
It was not a part of Versailles treaty.
Lithuania was given Wilno/Vilnius by advancing Soviets.
Poles took it back. Yup, not in a very good style, but the same Lithuanians took it back not in a very nice style after Soviet invasion. And anyway, Poland agreed that it stays in Lithuania, on condition that Polish would have been one of the official languages on these grounds, inhavited majorly by Poles. Lithuania refused.
quote:
2) Bullsh!t. Soviet government was a new government of Russia, recognized or not it doesn't matter. Who the hell gave you right to attack and occupy Ukraine? What Russian government?
|
Ukrainian gouverment in fact, the one of Petlura, He allowed Poland to keep western Ukraine after it captured it, on condition that it helps Ukraine in its fight against Soviets.
Also, western Ukraine, but Wolyn, didn't belong to Russia before the war.
And Soviets are no new Russian gouverment. Also, they agreed on independance of Poland. Wolyn, Galicia, Byelorus etc were a part of Poland before it lost independance.
quote:
it was it's successor. When Lenin took the power Russia didn't disappeared,
it just gain new government. This government gave Poland independence, but it didn't gave right to Poland to attack Soviets and grab parts of Ukraine and Byelorussia.
|
It was an illegal gouverment that had no right to an inch of former Russian territory
quote:
Western Ukraine belonged to Ukraine, western Byelorussia belonged to Beylorussia.
|
Ukrainian cossac state never, except for a short period of Chmielnicki's uprising, got that far west.
Byelorus never existed.
quote:
Absolute majority of population of these lands were Ukranians and Byelorussians. Ukraine and Beylorussia were among four co-founders of USSR. Those lands belonged to USSR. Simple as that.
|
They weren't an absolute majority there.
Also, it's not only about ethnicity. Also, there are historical aspects.
Soviet Republics were not an emanation of these nations. Ukraine was included into USSR by force. Byelorus had no feeling of nationality, most of it.
USSR was not a national state, It had no right to demand ground inhabited by any population.
quote:
Can you prove it? I never heard this. Anyhow, he doesn't study history, he makes history. There is a big difference.
Gorbachev, just repeated Guebel's propaganda. He invented nothing new.
|
Why would He intend to lie in that matter?
There are talks with Russian gouverment in Katy? case all the time, also on Putin level. The difference is only that your gouverment doesn't want to treat it as genocide and punish people who were transporting the victims and stuff, while our gouverment wills it.
quote:
And the cheif of Hitler's propaganda ministery is the last man whom I trust.
|
If He told You the sky is blue, wouldn't You believe Him?
I hope You ever realise USSR, especially in Stalin times, was an agressive, totalitarian, ruthless state that murdered people without any doubt, attacked it neighbours and simply had no intention in teaching truth in its schools
Have a nice day as well
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
If Iraq had attacked Iran and grabbed parts of it and then later US attack Iraq and at the same time Iran move its forces to occupy lands which Iraq took from them earlier, I wouldn't mind.
Is it Iran's fault that Iraq attacked them and stole thier territories? Why it can't use the situation to return lands that righfully belong to Iran?
Heresson gave us few fascinating metaphors about robbing the house and killing the person.
I can give another metaphor:
Imagine two persons in 1921, person "P" and "S". Person S went complete crazy and start to fight with himself and at the same time gang of mofos attacked him to rob him and heal him from his madness permanently (more probably by killing him p). Person P usually lacks the balls to attack person S, but this time situation is extremely favorable for person P. So, person P attacks and able to defeat person S. As result of his victory person P tooks some of person S weapons.
Years passed. Person S defeated his madness and became a whole again. He also defeted gang of mofos who tried to kill him. Then in 1933 new person N was born, he immidiently declared that he is going to kill person S, because he don't like him and becuase he needs its house. Person S tried to create wide coalition against person N, but persons whom he offered to create alliance, such as persons U and person F were members of that gang who tried to kill him recently and they declined the offer. He offered alliance to person P, he declined it too. Then in 1939, person N attacked person P and killed him. Person S knowing that person N is going to kill him too, quickly explored the corpse of person P and took the weapons which person P stolen from person S in 1921. Person S thought like-"what the heck? it's my weapons after all, and I need it more than this dead mofo who stole it from me 18 years ago".
Yes.
He soldl grain to buy equipment needed to create heavy industry to prepare country for war vs. nazi. But it was only one of the reasons for famine.
1) It's a big mistake for US. Poland is worse ally one could have. Russians know this for sure, now it's your turn to find this out.
2) It's a big mistake for Poland. In case of war we will need a buffer zone to protect core Russia from land invasion. So basicaly we'll just nuke our neighbour NATO members, turn their lands into radiactive wasteland. And Poland will be the first.
They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master. |
thanks! I guess I don't have any serious disagreement on these issues afterall.
With respect to the ongoing debate about Polish/USSR relations from the end of ww1 to the end of ww2, I'd have to say that so far I am finding that unambiguous primary sources cannot seem to be found to cast light on the major areas of disagreement.
The curzon line is well doccumented (for instance at Wiki article on Curzon line) and there is plenty of data doccumenting the fact that the Poles were in the minority east of that line. However, while the British proposed the Curzon line (hence the name) for Polands eastern border, the Treaty of Versailles only stated that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." It is also a fact that the USSR was indeed condemned not just by the league of nations but individually by a constellation of governments for its invasion of Finland but I could find no similar level of condemnation of it's invasion of Poland during the German invasion.
I also found some record of the diaries purporting to document Polish/German diplomacy but historians seriously doubt their authenticity. I also found that no primary sources are available describing the exact terms of the pact between Germany and USSR so that when historians surmise that a division of Poland had been previously negotiated this is purely an assumption.
It seems to me that the only real grevience that the USSR visited on the Poles was forcing them to have a socialist government after the war and also standing passively by during the warsaw revolt when they were clearly more than close enough to Warsaw to easily support the revolt at the time. However, the territorial adjustments don't seem any different from the way Poland treated other countries when it found occasion to invade them between ww1 and ww2.
just my 2 cents
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
The curzon line is well doccumented (for instance at Wiki article on Curzon line) and there is plenty of data doccumenting the fact that the Poles were in the minority east of that line.
|
They were a majority in eastern lithuania (including Vilnius), Grodno region, small region west to Minsk, Lwow,
and Podole region, and these are east to Curzon line
quote:
I could find no similar level of condemnation of it's invasion of Poland during the German invasion.
|
What Serb can't understand is that's not condemnation by League of Nations that constitutes an agression
quote:
However, the territorial adjustments don't seem any different from the way Poland treated other countries when it found occasion to invade them between ww1 and ww2.
|
Elaborate, please.
For Poland, territorial quarrels with
USSR, Lithuania,
Tchechoslovakia,
and Germany close after ww1 were simply
result of Poland regaining its independance. It didn't have fixed
borders, and creating them had to be in conflict with Germany and other, also newly borned, states around.
The only "attack" between ww1 and ww2 was the case of Cieszyn, of Tchechoslovakia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
So, person P attacks and able to defeat person S. As result of his victory person P tooks some of person S weapons.
|
1) Person S, in his madness, planned to attack person P
2) Those weapons were stolen from person P earlier, and person P just got part of them back
quote:
He offered alliance to person P, he declined it too. Then in 1939, person N attacked person P and killed him.
|
Person P, seriously wounded, escaped to person F and later E and together with person E defended against person N. Meanwhile, person S and person N joyfully looted his house.
quote:
2) It's a big mistake for Poland. In case of war we will need a buffer zone to protect core Russia from land invasion. So basicaly we'll just nuke our neighbour NATO members, turn their lands into radiactive wasteland. And Poland will be the first.
|
Serb at his finest. Bah bah bah, we'll nuke them, tratatatata. Like in kindergarden
They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master. [/QUOTE]
Which ones?
quote:
They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master.
|
Geronimo, if You wish to learn something from Serb, I pity You. Here is another great fruit of his mind and I doubt it will ever get any better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
When it comes to ethnic stuff, I can't find my etnic atlas, but when it was about population, it looked about like that by wojewodztwa:
Red ones are majorly (over 60%) Polish
Yellow one is majorly Byelorussian: actually, the citizens of this swampy regions didn't declare any nationality or language (they just answered "the local one"), but actually they were Byelorussians
Green ones are wojewodztwa inhabited majorly by Ukrainians: in both Poles were a definite, some 15% minority.
Podole region was about half-to half Polish and Ukrainian. more people declared Polish language, but only a bit, and because Jews largely declared it.
In two NE regions, Poles were a majority, I think it was about 3/4 in Vilnius region and 2/3 in Nowogrodek one.
By pink, I (schematically of course) pointed regions with large Polish minority/majority behind the boarders
The line is Curzon line
I will scan a more detailed map later on.
it will look less favourably to Poles, as in the East, they were more dispersed and more often lived in cities than Byelorussians or Ukrainians
 Attachment: wojewod.gif
This has been downloaded 37 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Geronimo, if You wish to learn something from Serb, I pity You. Here is another great fruit of his mind and I doubt it will ever get any better. |
I honestly have learned a great deal from reading Serbs perspective. His claims and conclusions are very often new to me but the thing that makes them different is that unlike most everyone else who makes radical claims, when I check out Serb's info it generally checks out and lacks blatant falsehoods. He makes radical statments but doesn't seem to pull them out of his arse. This is part of the reason I asked him those questions. I wanted to see if, for instance he would claim that stalin hadn't sold food abroad in the midst of a famine. In light of his responses, I'm inclined to respectfully disagree with your assumption that Serb simply spouts stalinist propaganda. So please do not pity me for asking for more information from Serb, so far it has lead me to quite a few new and verifiable insights.
This isn't to say that I doubt your own credibility however. In fact I share your assumption that Stalin probably formally negotiated the division of Poland with the nazis at some time immediately prior to the invasion. However I also recognize that I can only assume that this is the case because neither Stalin nor Hitler left complete impartial records of their foreign policy machinations.
As to your request that I elaborate on my comparison of Soviet territorial grabs vs Polish territorial grabs inbetween the wars I admit that there are not many instances of Polish military annexation of territories in that brief period but my point was only that in both cases the governments unilaterally made a decision to claim sovereignty over new territories and in both cases both countries managed to avoid censure from other countries for those acquisitions.
Last edited by Geronimo on 16-09-2004 at 23:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Here's a ethnicity map of Europe 1919-1924 that I scanned from The Time's Atlas of World History, notice that only in the extreme NE do Poles constitute of a majority of the population in the teritories in question.
 Attachment: 1919ethniceurope.jpg
This has been downloaded 33 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Ok, that map is just too damn small, this one should be a little more legible:
Attachment: 1919ethnicpoland.jpg
This has been downloaded 34 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
lacks blatant falsehoods.
|
You mean, like He claims that it were Germans behind Katyn mass murders, though even Russia officially admitted it was Soviet stuff, that's not a blatant falsehood?
You mean that when He claims it is Poland responsible for anschluss, Muenchen, II world war, that is not a blatant falsehood?
Like when He claims that what Soviets did to Poland in 1939 was not agression?
Like when He claims eastern boarders of Poland were settled by Versailles treaty?
Like when He claims that Soviets saved Lithuania from Polish agression?
Like when He says Poland is a servant of world mights?
Oh please...
quote:
He makes radical statments but doesn't seem to pull them out of his arse.
|
No, I don't think He makes them up. He copies them from some Soviet schoolbook or something
quote:
propaganda. So please do not pity me for asking for more information from Serb, so far it has lead me to quite a few new and verifiable insights.
|
Like what?
quote:
As to your request that I elaborate on my comparison of Soviet territorial grabs vs Polish territorial grabs inbetween the wars I admit that there are not many instances of Polish military annexation of territories in that brief period but my point was only that in both cases the governments unilaterally made a decision to claim sovereignty over new territories and in both cases both countries managed to avoid censure from other countries for those acquisitions. |
Poland was claiming lands shortly after it got independant, and was fighting for its independance and its boarders. Also, it never threatened some country's existance itself
Soviets, on the other hand, were annecting entire countries years after its boarders were settled, and were making ethnical cleansings on them.
That's a difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
On the closer map I can see that my statesments regarding Upper Silesia and Mazury were true. The same when it comes to Spisz and Orawa and Czadca. The way they showed the northern part is correct, but southern, it is more complicated; Poles were more dispersed there, and such smaller points can not be shown on such map.
I'll post two maps when I do scans (and if I find the atlases, two of them I lost in Warsaw).
One would be national, and the other depicts religion, but as Roman catholics in the East were Poles, and in several cases Lithuanians, and Orthodox and greek Catholics were Ukrainians, it should
be a good map, it is very precise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
You mean, like He claims that it were Germans behind Katyn mass murders, though even Russia officially admitted it was Soviet stuff, that's not a blatant falsehood?
You mean that when He claims it is Poland responsible for anschluss, Muenchen, II world war, that is not a blatant falsehood?
Like when He claims that what Soviets did to Poland in 1939 was not agression?
Like when He claims eastern boarders of Poland were settled by Versailles treaty?
Like when He claims that Soviets saved Lithuania from Polish agression?
Like when He says Poland is a servant of world mights?
Oh please...
|
The Katyn massacre was indeed at first only doccumented by the Nazis. It is true that so much incontrovertible physical and doccumentary evidence from so many sources has come out especially in recent times that it is now unreasonable to argue that Stalin did not order the mass execution of several thousand Polish prisoners at Katyn but I do not think Serb has spoken to this later evidence as yet. It is clear from links such as this Moscow News article regarding Katyn massacre that Russians currently take the matter of the Katyn massacre very seriously indeed.
His claims about Polish responsibility for the war should be taken no differently from claims that Neville Chamberlain is responsible for the war. Nobody would seriously argue that Neville Chamberlain rather than Hitler was responsible for the outbreak of ww2 and yet blame is placed upon Chamberlain all the same reflecting the fact that through his errors Hitler was able to gain a free hand in central and eastern europe. In this view Chamberlain is an indirect cause for the war while the Nazis were the direct cause. It is clear from Serbs post that he would still regard the Nazis themselves as directly to blame for ww2 while arguing that Polands diplomacy, like Neville Chamberlain was an indirect cause of the war as well.
He claims that USSR occupation of East Poland after the Nazis invaded west Poland does not constitute agression any different from the agression Poland visited upon Byelorussia and Ukraine. I don't see how you have clearly refuted this. Our imprecise ethnic maps seem to show that the areas in question were of mixed ethnic heritage and both the USSR and post ww1 Poland were integrated as political entities at about the same time with poorly delineated borders. Poland unilaterally laid claim to this disputed area by means of military occupation taking advantage of Soviet chaos following the revolution and later the USSR reversed the situation taking advantage of the choas following the Nazi invasion of Poland. These events transpired less than a generation apart so where is there any great fault to lay on either side?
Serb may have claimed that the Eastern borders were settled by the Versailles Treaty but I hardly regard this as blatant falsehood because a considerable effort was made to establish the Curzon line as Poland's eastern frontier in the drafting of that treaty and prior to the settlement of the question by military force most contemporary maps designated the curzon line as the frontier.
I hope you are not claiming that the USSR was so above dabbling in the intrigues of it's neighbors that it would not consider measures such as a security agreement with Lithuania. This claim of Serb's would be difficult indeed to label as a blatant falsehood, the fact that lithuania almost certainly had little reason to expect an invasion from Poland notwithstanding.
Lastly, that comment about serving the most powerful master clearly belongs to the insult/troll category so it hardly seems justified for me to jump on that as an example of a blatant faslehood. That's more like when people label the US a terrorist nation. Inflamatory perhaps but not really a serious claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
No, I don't think He makes them up. He copies them from some Soviet schoolbook or something
Like what?
Poland was claiming lands shortly after it got independant, and was fighting for its independance and its boarders. Also, it never threatened some country's existance itself
Soviets, on the other hand, were annecting entire countries years after its boarders were settled, and were making ethnical cleansings on them.
That's a difference. |
Certainly had the Polish conquests not been reversed it would have seriously threatened the independant existance of Belorussia and maybe even Ukraine as well. the ethnic cleasing wasn't a russian thing, it was a Stalin thing. He valued his own personal power and security and nothing else. To him ethnic rebellion was just another kind of rebellion and he was just as keen to nip it in the bud as any other kind of revolt. It wasn't out of a desire to gain real estate for Russians.
Anyway I hope you don't think I'm simply rejecting your view of the situation. I agree with quite a bit of what you've had to say and certainly I share your disgust with the legacy of the communists in Eastern Europe.
Last edited by Geronimo on 19-09-2004 at 10:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
I do not think Serb has spoken to this later evidence as yet.
|
Well, He should
quote:
arguing that Polands diplomacy, like Neville Chamberlain was an indirect cause of the war as well.
|
Perhaps Polish diplomacy could make more, but I doubt it. After Hitler got to power, Poland proposed preemptive strike on him to France. |France declined, and was left between two powers hostile to each other, but also hostile to Poland. There was no easy choice, Poland decided not to engage with any of them
quote:
Poland unilaterally laid claim to this disputed area by means of military occupation taking advantage of Soviet chaos following the revolution and later the USSR reversed the situation taking advantage of the choas following the Nazi invasion of Poland. These events transpired less than a generation apart so where is there any great fault to lay on either side?
|
First of all, SU wasn't helpless at this time. It had 3 mln army that almost crushed Poland. And it willed it, especially that earlier it crushed independant Ukraine in Kiev. Poland was gonna be next, as a stop on Soviet way to Germany. It was not a war about one region or another; Soviets have prepared a Polish communist gouverment and proclaimed it when they entered Bialystok. SU wanted to annex Poland as a next republic.
Poland didn't want to destroy Soviet Union, bah, it even halted offensive when the Whites were being too successful. It didn't even take all the territory Soviet diplomats offered it in Riga. Poland wanted to take back some of the lands that Russia had taken from it during the partages.
There were no Russians on these grounds, and Soviets weren't quite representative for Byelorussians and Ukrainians, not for Russians even.
In 1939, Soviets didn't just take some grounds. They took everything up to Vistula; lands that under no conditions could be treaten as Ukrainian or Byelorussian. The most important thing, however, is that Soviets with Germans destroyed Poland completely, if its gouverment haven't settled in the West; also, they and Germans agreed that no buffor Polish state shall be made by any of the sides;
SU didn't just take disputed areas, it participated in what seemed to be annihilation of Polish state.
Taken into account that they later were killing the officers and higher class of Poland, and that the rest they were throwing somewhere on steppes to die or dwell in inhumane conditions, You may say that Soviets also participated in annihilation of Polish nation, or just the active part of it.
quote:
Serb may have claimed that the Eastern borders were settled by the Versailles Treaty but I hardly regard this as blatant falsehood because a considerable effort was made to establish the Curzon line as Poland's eastern frontier in the drafting of that treaty and prior to the settlement of the question by military force most contemporary maps designated the curzon line as the frontier.
|
That the West willed it to be the boarder, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't
quote:
I hope you are not claiming that the USSR was so above dabbling in the intrigues of it's neighbors that it would not consider measures such as a security agreement with Lithuania.
|
Of course it would. And would later annex it, as it did.
quote:
Inflamatory perhaps but not really a serious claim.
|
I'm not so sure.
quote:
Certainly had the Polish conquests not been reversed it would have seriously threatened the independant existance of Belorussia and maybe even Ukraine as well.
|
Byelorus was not an independant state.
And when it comes to Ukraine, I dare to remind You Poland was allied with Petlura and that is why it captured Kiev with him. Poland wanted Galicia, perhaps Wolyn. and nothing more. Again I remind You Poland declined lavish Soviet offers when it comes to moving the boarder even more east.
The ones that put down the independance of Ukraine were Soviets.
quote:
the ethnic cleasing wasn't a russian thing, it was a Stalin thing. He valued his own personal power and security and nothing else. To him ethnic rebellion was just another kind of rebellion and he was just as keen to nip it in the bud as any other kind of revolt. It wasn't out of a desire to gain real estate for Russians.
|
I didn't claim it was!
But, on the other hand, doesn't Serb claim SU was just a next Russian gouverment?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-09-2004 11:12
|
