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

What countries in the world did not see Poland being occupied by the Soviets from 1950 to 1990?

Betrayed? At least in my mind one can only be betrayed by those who own one loyalty and who one trusts. I don't think that either of those apply to the Soviets and Mikolajczyk.


Answer: all of the ones which recognised the Warsaw government as legitimate and did not recognise either of the England-based 'governments in exile', i.e. every country in the world.

All of them: the PRL was recognised by every country who recognised the Second Republic. The Vatican (until 1959), General Franco's Spain and the Irish Republic (until 1979) were the last stragglers. The US recognised them from the start.


A very good point.

The US thought that Poland and other Soviet Bloc countries like Hungary, Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia were not controlled by Moscow?

That's why Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall"?

That's why Russian troops were in all these countries?

Good God its scary to know that an "Enemy Within" like you lives in Poland.

The USA recognised the government in Warsaw as the legitimate and lawful government of Poland. Just as they recognised the governments in Budapest, East Berlin and Prague as being the legitimate and lawful governments of Hungary, Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia. End of story.


There were more than twice as many American troops in West Germany as Soviet troops in Poland: but neither West Germany nor Poland were occupied nations from 1949 onwards.


And it is wonderful to know that the likes of you will never even visit Poland.

And when it comes down to it - international recognition is what matters.


What has Reagan's speech got to do with recognition? If you actually knew how international relations worked, you'd know that in Europe, at least two major leaders were very much in favour of two Germanies and they had no issue with recognising both. Even West Germany recognised East Germany in the 1970's.


Is that your standard insult when the facts disagree with you?

Exactly. So when it comes to the question of whether the communist years in Poland were Soviet occupation, the resounding answer from the world is "No". It's interesting that most Poles agree with the rest of the world, but that some 'Polish'-Americans think that they know better than Poles about what happened in Poland.

Ah yes a subtle play on words, but I am sure any of the good teachers on here would point out that betrayed can be used as a transitive verb, in the context of being lead astray, of being seduced. And furthermore, in this context it is surely used as a synonym of back stab, double cross, or going back on. But you my dear Harry realized that all the time. :-)

Not really, hence my question.

So in that context, was he betrayed?

Controlled is not the same as occupied.

So what would you call it? Already asked that question, yet nobody answered, would you ?


that all, you know what it wasn't but you don't know what it was ?

phew!
anybody ?

Most Poles don't come to this website since they see its just a bash Poland website for trolls like you. They are also mostly on Polish language websites anyway.

America had diplomatic relations with the governments located in the territories of Soviet Bloc nations like Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc because they "were the only game in town" so to speak. America wanted to have some relation with the people of those countries despite how imperfect the government representing them or vehicle of communication was.

But that still does not mean those countries were not controlled by Moscow. Moscow allowed some liberties to these countries (like allowing them to communicate with the West), but that does not mean Moscow did not control them.

Nobody here claiming that Moscow did not control these countries will answer the simple question. Could the governments of these countries do things that Moscow didn't like?? Why wasn't capitalism put into place prior to 1990 in Poland and the rest of the Soviet Bloc nations?

Why wasn't East Germany allowed to unite with West Germany before 1989? I'm sure the people of both those countries wanted to unite from 1950-1989.

Exactly. Case closed.

Legally no, in practice yes, at least in 1944-56, later "partly".

I refer you to Tito's Yugoslavia, Hoxha's Albania and Ceausescu's Romania. All of them frequently did what they wanted to do and didn't toe the party line. Both Yugoslavia and Albania very much did their own thing - and Romania was also rather independently minded at times.


You do realise that the French and British didn't particularly want German unification? If you knew your history (which you don't) - you'd know that the price of German unification was the Euro.


They don't come to this website because the majority of Poles don't see "the enemy within", they don't subscribe to ridiculous Smolensk theories and certainly have nothing to do with racist Polish-Americans who insist that they know better than Polish people.


Backtracking. There was the Polish Government in Exile in London that also claimed to represent Poles - so there was an option there. East Germany also had West Germany claiming to be the only lawful successor of the Third Reich - so there was no need to recognise the DDR.


There are certainly plenty of examples where Moscow wasn't controlling things. Then again, you wouldn't see this - because you're blinded with tinfoil-hat-rage.

Incidentally, there were plenty of countries supporting the Soviet Bloc - I suggest you start with a course on voting patterns in the UN.

Not really, Tibet part of China controlled or occupied? The legal argument crashes there as does the recognition argument. Kosova, Parts of Georgia, Kashmir... depends on which part of non existent international law you decide to agree with.

Legally part of China and recognised as such. Even prior to 1959 nobody (including the Tibetans) claimed it had full independance.


Both still hold.


International law exists and the majority view holds. The PRL was not an occupation. Case still closed.

Jonny it’s an opinion
I've no wish to go wading through treacle over international law or the status of Tibet. I view it (Tibet) as an occupation and many countries have a convenient unspoken policy ignoring the reality.

The nonsense of China's seat at the UN should illustrate that the only thing that matters is might not law.
The guy with the biggest gun wins. I don’t like kow towing to the school yard bully which is what international relations is all about.

In this forum there seem to be two polarised opinions on this. I suspect (and everything anybody over about 65 has ever said to me about it points that way) the reality of the situation was not at all black and white.


In many ways it is. Legally China are in the right - the only real argument against that is that the aboriginal nature and unique way of life of Tibetan society created a situation where they didn't assert statehood, and as the first nation inhabitants they should be treated as a special case as regards self-determination. India got it right with Bhutan and Sikkim.


Very true.


Quite a good answer.

Nice post Jonny

Have you just logged on again like me

Or - as was often the case, especially in the 60's/70's - it was whoever bribed the Government with the most cash. It went to ridiculous levels when you had the USA and the Soviet Union both showering small insignificant countries with cash, just to get them to go along with their "system" and not the other.

When MediaWatch rants about no-one recognising the PRL, he forgets that there were plenty of Soviet-aligned countries who weren't controlled by anyone - especially the Arab and African countries.

It's possible that some Poles think that now but back in the day all the Poles I met and developed friendships with and who were not Party members did indeed feel as if they were occupied. They were angry, frustrated and at times fearful. They never, ever felt that they were free to pursue their happiness.....just sayin

I was born in PRL way back when.... I felt it was occupied, indirectly maybe, but still. Can't forget my grandpa when he was in his late 70'ies listening to BBC polish service, many years ago, in the countryside..... it was so eerie to listen to and yet, or because of that, I so adored him. Rest in peace Józef.

We followed in your dear grandfather's footsteps. We too stayed up late when the reception was best to listen to BBC and VOA.

ehrm yes

1939-1941
From the red army's march into Poland and til Stalin's death
and later on until 1989 when Poland did not lay claims to her earlier borders.
Before that, yes Poland was occupied.
"Polska" republik ludowa was not occupied. It was the occupier which the Kreml was controlling

Just because a goose is called a swan and is accepted by the whole world, it still doesn't make it a swan.
PRL was nor will ever been have Poland. It was an illusion which sadly many Poles did accept for a long time. (hence Harry's large party member list)

• 
  Curzon_lineen.jpg
  

And doesn't now.

excactly why I don't say that Lwów is occupied by Ukrainian state or Wilno by Lithuanian state and etc
Their not in Poland anymore, nor is it Polish as it once was (Wilno is a heated topic but still no)

Still Poland was occupied by the Soviets (as the topic starter asks) saying not is going into technical gibberish that only an bored man or a commie would enjoy.

Briefly and tragically during the war. We've already established that the PRL (or as the OP describes it 'the Communist years) was not a 'Soviet occupation'.

No, you and a couple other British expatriates have claimed this but the Polish, Polonian, and Irish members of this forum have shown that your claims are all wet. Why should it surprise anyone that forum members from a country with a bloody history of imperialism would be wrong about this?