Would you classify the Poland's Communist years as a "Soviet occupation" ?

Evidently not. Occupation is external military administration which is opposed by the international community.

You ask him first !

Jonny that is the same logic that allows one to use the phrase

"Not in an official capacity".

So you wish to claim that Mikolajczyk and the others from the government in exile were imposed on the people of Poland by the Soviets? Really?

that doesn't really make much sense. The definition of an occupation is very precise. Someone may not like a regime (though there were many in the PRL who liked it very much) but that doesn't make it an occupation.

stop rolling you fence sitter


So, according to you familiar with all those terms and all what PRL would be then - colony ?

There is a guy on here who usually says something along the lines of
"Instead of responding to something I said you responded to something I didnt say"


The satellite states were given as much freedom to manoeuver as the Soviets allowed.


Thankfully the world is not run by teachers or milk monitors.

It took five years to install the occupation power, which then could continue to operate as a soviet puppet. Remember Marshal Law was imposed to prevent a re-invasion. So it was an occupation with threat of worse.


Yet when they kicked out the Communists the Russians went too. How many people vote communist when they isn't a Russia invasion/occupation threat?

The claim you made is that "The post war Polish governments were imposed by the Soviets i.e. puppet regimes." Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in post-war years; therefore you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets. I very much think that he would disagree rather strongly with you about that if he were able to do so.


Which explains why both Albania and Romania refused to have any part at all in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.


Er, if the Soviets were already occupying Poland in 1981, they couldn't actually invade Poland.

Entirely natural given that they were in the USSR's sphere of influence, though the relationship between the Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR was in part determined by a balance between how keen the various states were to take part (in Poland's case, very) and how able the USSR was to influence factors.


No. It is run according to the rule of international statesmanship and diplomacy; which clearly, precisely and unambiguously defines 'occupation'. The PRL was not an occupation.

Yes! Russian troops occupied Poland in 1944-45, suppressed all opposition by killing, deportations, and imprisonment, and maintained occupation troops in Poland till 1990. Occupation means unwelcome presence of military force and domination of the nation.

They did but were not recognised and in practice were an irrelevance. The two post war "entities" that were recognised were imposed, there is no therefore about it.



The USSR exercised their ability to allow dissent, they waved the stick as they saw fit. That's why they all collapsed once that threat was removed.


Which is why they never occupied the Baltic states.....a convenient unspoken truth.
They made the rules to suit themselves.

This does not make the PRL an occupation.


The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union. The rules, by the way, were there already.

Please try harder: the Provisional Government of National Unity was a coalition between the 'eastern' and 'western' governments, Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in it and it was internationally recognised. If you wish to claim that it was imposed by the Soviets, you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets.

They were annexed while under occupation.


No they were not, Until the modern era recognition of a particular entity was dependant solely upon recognition by a larger power in effect Britain or France and to a lesser extent the Ottoman Empire. This was based upon military might, a kind of rule by the law of conkers. The League of Nations was the first attempt to codify international law in effect giving rights to smaller nations this body was founded by colonial powers just as the UN was.


A puppet government, a Quisling state like Norway, described by the Allies as occupied.

That doesn't relate to the fact that Poland wasn't occupied. Or annexed.


Much as it is now, except the responsibilities are spread more thinly. The effect is the same in Poland's case; either de facto or de jure the PRL wasn't an occupation.


That's the last thing it was, as amply demonstrated in this thread.

I wasn't aware that one in eight Norwegian adults were members of Nasjonal Samling. In fact I'm pretty sure that membership never went much past 30,000. But more than one in eight Polish adults were members of PZPR in the 1970s.

This does beg the questions why it lasted so long and when does a government becomes legitimate.
Controlling the food supply, housing, education and employment are all tools used to control a population especially one that hasn’t given its consent.
People did what they thought best to advance themselves. There is from necessity a degree of collaboration in any illegitimate system people can't be dammed for that nor can they be used to provide retrospective legitimacy.

The system was imposed by an other country that ensured it remained, that is occupation.

The point about the Baltic States is that these "clearly defined rules" were created to provide legitimacy. Quoting a textbook definition is entirely unhelpful, global international law is based upon precedent and as there is no supreme binding court to interpret and create precedent that role has been taken by the Security Council which is not unbiased.

And how many were party members after the occupation? Sure you couldn't pee during communism without being a member.

(and you don't get to call my grandparents traitors because I diagree with you hahaha:)

here's a read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupations#Poland]Soviet occupations (Wiki)


And on a personal note it had/has all the halmarks of an occupation, left on the mentality of the Polish people.

Here's another: Occupation of Poland

You could pee but being a PZPR member was making life easier.My father became a PZPR member in order to get a flat sooner rather than later and he did get it fairly quickly.

One in eight, as written above. The occupation ended in the 1940s.

IF we are talking about (paraphrase the title) would you classify Communism as "Soviet occupation", then nope, it didn't.

You know this already Jonny, you also know that you couldn't pee during communism without joining and that that was a simple fact of life and dispite the "brave" talk of somepeople, many at the time thought the occupation would never end, at least not in their lifetime.

Is it just for the sake of argument?

And to add to the debate, I think it is very wrong, for the Nazi Germans to take blame for their wrong doing and the winners of WWII, to get away with murder.

Just look at what happened with this whole Katastrofa Smoleńska and tell me it has nothing to do with the undercurrent feeling of grief Poles still have for Katyn.

no you lie blatantly - your dad was and ardent communist just like 95 per cent of those 3 million people with PZPR member papers

It could be but he is saying that it was sekretarz organizacji zakładowej who convinced him to become communist when he told him Mister Kowalski WE know that you are waiting for a flat and soon we going to have some nice and new flats for our employees but the priority will be given to Party members.So he decided that it's better to be a communist with a flat than a non communist without one.

we have already heard all such and even better excuses you commie germ :P

Most people didn't join. Only one in eight.


A tragic and straightforward accident, upon which some nutters have fixated and sought conspiracies that just aren't there. The same sort of people who say the PRL was an 'occupation.'

I really dont know how I missed this earlier, sorry.
Seriously Harry!


Ah come on man.

Edit


That’s a big leap

Are you saying, to get certain things during communism, you didn't improve your chances by becoming a member? because that is what I am saying.


Perhaps I did not explain what I meant well enough,

Yes it was a tragic accident.

I firmly believe that the "fixated" "nutters" (as you call them) have an issue, that is the unresolved issue of Katyn.

I believe that many Polish people would have grieved and moarned the death of so many of thier known citizens but the fact they were going to comemorate Katyn, which Soviet Russia never appologised for, or really got any grief for, the way Nazi Germany has, toppled many over the top and still today I hear about the crash on the radio.

I think this is part of the postoccupied mentality of Poland that many just choose to either ignore or disbute, perhaps for thier own guilt in selling thier allies out? And perhaps they had no choice in letting Poland be occupied by Soviet Russia after the war because they were knackered, still doesn't change much.

And saying that people are "nutters and fixated" because they think the PRL was an occupation is just bad sportsmanship, old bean.

You could ask why in a country where 7 out of 8 people (87.5%) were non communist what forces kept the Communists in power. Was the regime held in place by the threat of military intervention from the USSR? Why is that not an occupation?

What makes a country governed in this way not subject to the will of a foreign country?


The allies couldnt do a thing militarily nor did they have a moral leg to stand on as they were occupying many lands themselves.
Your right that's why it's disputed.

Edward Szczepanik?
guardian.co.uk/news/2005/dec/19/guardianobituaries.mainsection

Stanisław Mikołajczyk escaped Poland in 1947 (with the help of British embassy) because he feared for his life. He wrote a book titled 'The rape of Poland: pattern of Soviet aggression' in which he described among others sovietization of Poland and falsification of 'Polish' elections.

---------------------------------------------------------
Worth reading:
Leonid Gibianskii (Institute of Slavic Studies - Russian Academy of Sciences) and Norman M. Naimark (Stanford University):

ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2004_817-16_Gibianskii.pdf

The Soviet Union and the establishement of communist regimes in eastern Europe, 1944-1954.

Without Soviet involvement, there would not be 'People's Republic of Poland'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Sixteen