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

The what??

Your post doesn't actually add anything to the discussion - but then again, your experience of Poland could be written on the back of a postage stamp. One thing you might like to do is to come here and actually speak with people who served in the administration during the PRL, who were party members, who got on with their lives and did what they could for Poland - they would be very offended indeed if you suggested they were collaborating with a foreign occupier.

If you don't know what a Polonian is then you are even more uninformed than you seem.


So what if they would be offended? They were collaborating with a foreign occuppying power.


It seems that you have alot of experience being petty and sarcastic. You must be so pleased with yourself.....

communist years does not equal PRL or the time of PRL
time period does not equal time period of a state

If we are talking about Poland being occupied in the time period: Communist years then yes it was occupied, by the government which controlled the PRL and the Soviet Union occupying Poland's former eastern borders

If we are talking about the time when Poland was ruled by communists (if you think PRL = Poland) then no it wasn't soviet occupation (thinking nowadays Poland's borders) but, PRL occupation.


Not calling them such would offend those who chose to NOT have such a nice life despite their chance of having it. Under any circumstances

Nice to have that luxury of distance, however you'd find that in Poland, if you eventually get round to visiting (I invite you) you'll find that the general consensus is quite the opposite.

I do not have a distant relationship with my family


my last visit was last year, my next will be in Scotland's capitol Edinburgh with my friends, ill check if ill have the money for a trip to Poland


The general consensus was that it was OK to be a party member? Or co-operate?

Which is why there wasn't any form of armed rebellion against the Soviet occupation
Those who would do it wouldn't get the support of the public because of the failure in 1944 and other failures in the past.

Also I do not find it stimulating talking with "most" Poles because they would slander me a traitor just because of my "Szlacheckie korzenie" which I find deeply sad. Although if you had an different experience please share it

disregard some of what I have written I only just now noticed that you were talking about people working for the state but, not people that had "luxury" thanks to being a member of the party, my fault.

(mods are free to remove any content which is about Poles working in state jobs)

You would be called a terrorist like so many others, law is on the side of the occupier. law is on the side of the powerful.....always.

@MrGrunwald, my post was addressed to the troll who posted above you.

Worth mentioning that all these points have been made and it was established that the PRL, while hardly a paragon of liberal democracy, was not an occupation.

Spoken like the troll that you are, JohnnyM. It was an occupation. You are wrong

Oh dear; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I invite you to Poland to meet some of the people who live there, to discuss with them if they think they laboured under the brutal yoke of occupation. The souls of those butchered in occupied territories throughout history would laugh to hear you describe the PRL as an occupation.

Hahahaha are you ever so upset? Will you call up Nigel and commiserate about what the beastly Polish-American called you?
If you don't like being called a troll then you shouldn't call other people trolls. It is called the golden rule. Perhaps you need to go back to kindergarten and learn it.


I decline your invitation now and forever. I have read this thread and many of the posts are from people who were in Poland during the time of Soviet hegemony and thay say that it was an occupation. I agree with them, and not with you. Is that not allowed on this forum? Will you call me more names, tough guy?


What the hell would an Englishman know about what the "souls" of those butchered during occupations would laugh at? They would more likely be laughing at the presumption of an defender of colonialism claiming to speak for them- especially since so many of the butchered were dismembered at the behest of his majesty's government.

" Hahahaha are you ever so upset? Will you call up Nigel and commiserate about what the beastly Polish-American called you? If you don't like being called a troll then you shouldn't call other people trolls. It is called the golden rule. Perhaps you need to go back to kindergarten and learn it."

I'd like to address this, but before I do so, can a mod please confirm that it's on topic; I'd hate to get a ban for going off topic.

After 8000 posts you should know by now, if your post will be off topic or not!

ah ok, good to clarify that misunderstanding


the state PRL had to do all what Moscow said, which most of the Polish public thought was the right thing to do for those in charge since they would most likely get demoted, killed or in any way harmed. Of course if it was their choice and there was no barriers they would like to have an free and democratic Poland without any commie joke as their government.

In no legal sense it was thought of as occupation, but the people living in Poland felt they were occupied. No matter the political system there were red army soldiers there with red army tanks who were the only reason why the governments of PRL were tolerated.

1. Foreign force in an foreign country under the PRETEXT of defending it doesn't mean it isn't occupying it.

Actually, we go by history. And history shows that the PRL was internationally recognised and a fully accepted member of the United Nations. It most certainly was not "occupied".


Indeed. Do we need to mention that martial law was an operation carried out by the Polish Army against Poles?


Indeed, it was the recognised Polish state. The "Government-in-exile" enjoyed little to no international recognition.


Mods?


That's not actually true. If you look at the Soviet Bloc - we have the first example of Tito more or less telling Moscow to get ******, the second example of Albania following China and not Moscow, and the third example of Romania perusing somewhat of an independent line (and winning favour with the West). All of these somewhat confirm that Moscow's rule wasn't anywhere near as total as is assumed. The different interpretations of socialism in each country also shows this - Poland never went in for collective farming in a big way, for instance.


Killing and harming didn't happen very much after Stalinism. Marital law was actually exceptional for how restrained it really was - to this day, I can't figure out why the leading figures behind Solidarity weren't murdered.


There were plenty of people who had no interest in this - because they were better off under the PRL than before. Many peasants became people of power in the PRL - do you think they would have had power under the elitist II RP?


Did you forget who was part of WRON already? Poland after Poznan 56 was more than capable of dealing with problems herself.


If anything, Poles were occupying Poland after Stalinism came to an end.

Stalin tried to assassinate Tito several time and about Albania no clue, maybe cause it was unimportant?


Again it's not Poland and not earlier educated commies that seized the power in Poland thanks to the red army or can you tell me something otherwise


It confirms that the puppets in PRL were more obidiant then other eastern block countries like Romania.


Reason behind that was that the biggest portion of any kind of support the commies could get was from farmers, and to NOT disturb their "support" was of course to not take their land... Behave like nobles in the past? Poland was of a specific exclusion to the rule.


Not much but it, did happen. The threat alone did immense damage


well surprise surprise the army that was doing what they were told to do, were conscripts from the Polish population! There were plenty obstacles for any commie officer who didn't think about that.


Somehow a peasant president comes to my mind but, no matter let's just ignore facts shall we? There wasn't a will to do except thinking about their land!

If there was any law restraining peasants or any class in Poland from gaining wealth please enlighten me. Under PRL certainly there were plenty of people who were prohibited to get almost anything.


PRL if you don't mind were only an arm which the Soviet Union called Poland. It's existence was only so that large scale rebellions for an state that could be proclaimed Polish would never happen. The fight during Communist years were limited to political fights and not national fights per say. Until a broad majority of the Polish people felt that independence is at it's place.


Hah laughable, if anything those "Poles" were not Poles. Either crooks or sellouts and commies. But not Poles that's for sure. Just like calling Quisling a Norwegian very laughable indeed.

Tito swiftly told Stalin where to go though. If you consider that Stalinism was the worst - and they couldn't finish off Tito - it shows how Moscow wasn't anywhere near as dominant as the Western media pretended. As for Albania - it certainly was important in its own way.


The point is that the Soviet Union simply didn't have as much of an iron grip over Poland as Americans seem to think. It's even known nowadays that the Soviet Union was anticipating the loss of Poland in the early 80's.


Or perhaps it confirms that they were simply happy with their lot. Don't forget that Communism did bring in some positive changes too - we saw the introduction of universal free education for the first time in a Polish state, for instance. It's easy for us from the West to not understand - but Poland changed dramatically - and many former peasants were very happy with the idea of guaranteed work, guaranteed flat and so on.


Actually - it's more that they encountered massive opposition to the plans. Again - another example where Poland didn't toe the line.


Doesn't change the fact that it was a Polish general who ordered the crackdown on Poles. I don't remember the exact number, but the army was a generally trusted institution prior to December 1981 - Jaruzelski himself was actually quite popular - and it was believed that the army would never be used against Poles themselves.


The peasants moved into the cities. The elite was destroyed in WW2 - and former peasants suddenly found themselves thrust into power.


The social barriers in the II RP were tremendous - again - one thing that Communism offered was a way for people from poor backgrounds to become elite in the country. Same in most Communist countries, in fact.


Unfortunately, they were as Polish as they came. The elite were often made up of people who came from generations of villagers - people who were as Polish as they come. And don't forget the ultimate example - Jaruzelski, born into a family of Polish Catholic patriots. Heck - what about Jaroslaw Kaczynski's father - former AK turned PZPR.

People try and deny it nowadays, but there's absolutely no escaping the fact that Communism couldn't have survived for so long without the collaboration of a vast amount of Poles. I'm not passing judgement - but it couldn't have happened without them.

Did the Polish Army have the option of doing what Moscow did not like?

Yes - for instance, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was only made by the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary. Romania notably kept out of it, as did East Germany.

Yugoslavia wasn't in the Warsaw pact...


Directly or indirectly did it matter? The Soviets occupied Polish lands either you like it that way or not so it is proper to call the Communist years as Soviet occupation!


Had they worked hard and seen that as number one priority in their life then they would eventually get it! But there was very few tries at best! Having the commies almost force people to move...


Yes and their opposition was not wished for


PRL or Soviet influenced commies


He doesn't even deserve his own last name his family denounced him if I remember correctly.


By whom?


The elite was halved, made into sheeps or petrified to death. But the destruction came after ww2.


Maybe in finding government jobs, but not in making your life better...


Your problem is that you think of them in a ethnocentric way... What language they spoke or what tradition they had around the table or what kind of food they made didn't give a damn to people like my family! They were traitors to Poland! They lost their nationality and any mingling with them was downgraded to an absolute minimum.


heh... Well one says: Potatoes? They shouldn't even have the audacity to call it a vegetable! While others say: Oh POTATOES! How wonderful!


a szlachta family which denounced him, he can be what ever you want but a Pole? I strongly object


Shameful and thank god I never voted for PiS


Do you really think an Irish would call any of the soldiers that shot at them in their attempts for independence: Irish? No matter that he was born in Dublin and moved to London or had a strong Irish accent? They would call him a Brit. And rightly so!

Just like that I call all those traitors commies! Their a different nationality for me which doesn't count for anything.


Honestly what ever PRL ever did with Moscow's permission or not doesn't neglect the fact it was occupied by the Soviet Union. Even the fact that it indeed participated in the invasion of Czechoslovakia points in that direction.

The reason behind East Germany not participating is obvious. Just like the Soviet Union halting them from intervening in Poland.

Well if the Polish army went along with the Soviets, it appears it did so to stay in the good graces of the Soviets.

Indeed, more like the government of PRL then the army itself. Unless I am unaware that the "Polish" generals and military leaders were hungering for an invasion of Czechoslovakia and did what ever in their power to convince their political leaders?

Going to bed now cya all an other time

It was certainly a member of Cominform.


It is not proper at all - in fact, it's historical revisionism to suggest so. Sovereignty tends to rest upon recognition - and the PRL was internationally recognised.


Again - Western propoganda. The Communist system generally did quite a good job of getting people into liveable accommodation - the huge building projects in the 50's all the way through to the 80's are testament to that. There was never much in the way of horrible communal apartments, unlike in the USSR for instance.


What has that got to do with anything?


You can't change the fact that it was a guy from a patriotic Polish Catholic family of noble origins who dealt a decisive blow to Poles at that time.


Open the history books and you'll see it in black and white - he was regarded as being one of the better Communists - and was seen as someone who was able to do what was best for Poland. Never wondered why martial law was such a shock? Nothing to do with the repression - but everything to do with who was repressing.


That's why lots of peasants fled just before/after the founding of the II RP, right? The II RP was a dreadful country in terms of social mobility - don't even try and pretend otherwise.


Ah, it's so easy to say that now. They were Polish and Poles, no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise. If they weren't - how could they be traitors?


Actually - they do call them Irish. They may add all sorts of words before/after the word, but they're still Irish. You can't try and change history by making them to be something that they aren't.


You do realise that there was considerable bad blood between Czechoslovakia and Poland for years?


They took part in the Soyuz 80 moves, so to suggest that the Soviet Union gave a damn about Polish sensitivities in this area is amusing.

No matter what you say - no matter how much you claim to be some proud patriotic family - the fact remains that Poles enslaved Poles.


I suggest you look at Polish-Czechoslovak relations. They were quite poor - 1920, 1938, 1968 and even 1980 all point at why. It had nothing to do with "good graces" and everything to do with the fact that the Poles quite wanted to give them another bloody nose. Don't forget that Poland in 1968 would still have quite liked to take some territory back.


They wouldn't have needed convincing - there was enough bad blood there.

Not in the slightest.


Who?


Check out the meaning of that phrase.


Why not check out the meaning of occupation. We've already established that compromised though the PRL was, it most definitely wasn't an occupation.


How many Poles were "dismembered at the behest of his majesty's government".

Now stop trolling and run along.


Plus schools, hospitals, all the stuff they hadn't been good at before or since when profit reared it's ugly head.


A sound point and very much at the heart of it.

Maybe according to former SB/ZOMO/party members. If you talk to people who were in the opposition, you will get diffrent answer. Majority of Polish adult population was not in the party.

Those who were in the apparatus of repression are deeply despised in Poland.

Of course, much of the "opposition" had family members in prominent positions. And let's not forget that many people were members of the Party through their jobs - not many people refused good work on the grounds of mandatory Party membership.


Education is the big one for me - the difference between the II RP and the PRL when it came to providing education to all was massive.


Except they're not. Jaroslaw Kaczynski is a fine example - a man who undoubtably benefited from having a father in a good position in the PZPR, a product of a turncoat traitor - and yet the man still wins 30% of the vote.

So many Poles benefited from the system (even if they weren't Party members themselves) that such hatred is completely artificial.

(and much of the hatred stems from jealousy as opposed to being for ideological reasons)

Jarosław Kaczyński wasn't in the PRL's apparatus of repression. Should we despise children for deeds of their parents?
Anyway, what is the basis of your claims? Did you live during communism in Poland?

Total nonsense. If there hadn't been enough of such Poles, the Russians would have been sent to do the job, actually It was partly implemented in 1944-56. If anything else had failed, Poland would have been made one more Soviet republic.

Technically, you're right. Nonetheless, the people of that time behaved as if they were indeed occupied. Everyone knew who the occupiers were. Everyone knew what the occupiers deemed appropriate and inappropriate. And everyone was in agreement WHO the true occupiers were. No one that I came in contact with during my 7 years ever laid the final blame on Warsaw. All eyes looked East.

Another masterstroke by the Communists - make people believe that Moscow was the one oppressing them, when it was the Government of the PRL all along. The truth was only revealed in December 1981 - and the way that the system fell apart quickly after that tells you a lot.

When you see how utterly brainwashed the people were by the Communists - it's frightening. To this day - many myths which exist as a result of brainwashing ("recovered territories", "western betrayal" and so on) are still passed down from generation to generation.


It doesn't change anything - Poles oppressed Poles after 1956, not the Soviets.

As much as you cling to hypothetical situations and so on - the basic facts are that Poles were doing the dirty work, not Soviets or anyone else.

Also worth pointing out that the Soviets had little appetite for doing much in 1981.

Sure but it does not mean that there would have been no communism in Poland If not the Poles opressing Poles. Do you seriously believe that If one day let's say in 1965 all UB officers didn't show up at "work" and PZPR members did flush their party membership handbooks down the toilet then Poland would soon have had free elections, became member of NATO and so on ?


So why are you defending matrial law so much ?

Without a doubt. One thing to bear in mind that in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 - there were a willing cadre of Party members who were happy to stab their comrades in the back to retain power. If all the comrades had turned round and said ***** you" (or a First Secretary who commanded immense personal loyalty, like Tito) - the Soviet Union would have had a hell of a problem on their hands.


Hard to see what else could have been done - Jaruzelski was in a tough spot, and couldn't have been sure of their intentions despite saying that they had no interest in helping - they did the same thing previously to Czechoslovakia.