Another lie - only the communists that mascaraded themselves as Polish wanted the Soviets in Poland.
You are either really stupid or a little girl...If it's the latter, just say so and I will leave you alone...
In the meantime...Quoting:
The United States re-established its Embassy in Warsaw on July 31, 1945, following the end of World War II. Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane presented his credentials on August 4, 1945, and served until February 24, 1947.
The moment Mr. Bliss shook hands with the Pole in front of him, the US recognized the government in Warsaw as legit and the presence of the Soviet troops as legitimate.
Since a country can have only one government, the US told the guys in London to get lost.
the US recognized the government in Warsaw as legit
Legal Polish government was in London. As a sign of continuity, first democratically elected president (Walesa) took insignia from the last president-in-exile during his swearin-in, not from Jaruzelski.
Those who ruled in Warsaw were brought here on Soviet tanks and held power only as long as there were Soviet tanks backing them. No wonder that they power crumbled immidiately when it was apparent that Gorbachev won't bail them out.
And you say Polish government in 1944-45 wasn't a puppet? Despite all allies agreeing that there should be elections and there being recognized government in exile in London that has not authorised soviet activity?
The US recognized the Polish government in 1945.as legitimate.
Yes, recognized puppet pro-Soviet goyvernment over the government in exile. We were sold, plain and square. Soviet security forces were operating on site right from the start in 1944 though, even before this recognition changed to the soviet puppet government.
Ownership is defined as possessing 90% of the rights. It doesn't matter if the so-called London govermnat in exile was legal or not, whenever it was recognized by Poles elsewhere or anywhere. It was a nice symbol of national defiance, but aside from its symbolic function, there was nothing more to it. In reality, the government in Warsaw, in Poland, dominated by the Soviets, was the real government. So, the US recognized reality. The transaction of selling the whole of central and eastern Europe to the Soviet Union was done elsewhere and much earlier. --
even before this recognition changed to the soviet puppet government.
The third law of Newton's laws of politics states - those who hold bigger guns make the rules.
There is an exception to every rule. Poland, as a key country in this part of the world, can never be an exception. ---- One more from a different angle: Allow me to introduce you once again to the third Newton's law of politics. Do you think it sufficiently explains the issue of Kosovo?
No, idiot, the US can't sell what it doesn't own. Duh!
I've always wondered what the supposed price was. If Poland was something which the US and the UK sold to the USSR (which they clearly did not), what was the supposed price that Stalin agreed to pay?
Actually I am a subcriber of Poland being "the Winkelried of Nations". That was coined by Słowacki. Though I'm a little tired of it. And don't want another situation where Poland will have to suffer for the well being of the rest of Europe. Like the time we are sold to USSR so others could live a peaceful lives.
There is a philosophy called "Winkelriedism", which name is taken from the hero's name. It is based on an individual giving himself up idealistically and sacrificially to the enemy for the betterment of others.Juliusz Słowacki created this way of thinking in his dramatic poem "Kordian", where the titular character decides to kill the Tsar of Russia to take Poland's suffering on himself, easing a breakthrough to freedom for his nation. Słowacki considered Poland the "Winkelried of Nations", a bitter and fatalistic sentiment.
Simple and vulgar" came first form those who used the term "sold"
Sold is used by them in place of a moral judgment, not to describe an actual monetary transaction. If you want to ask about moral judgment, ask away. A deal between the US and the Soviet Union was about spheres of influence, and they conspired together to oust old colonial powers like France and Britain. Transaction - I take Poland, you take Austria. I take X, you take Y. ---
I'd suggest you take a history book and read up on the reasons why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: American meddling in the Pacific region and imposing economic sanctions on Japan. Churchill opened a bottle of champagne when the stupid Yanks were finally drawn into WW2. He stopped drinking though when the Brits lost their Empire because of his actions. Now Trump is trying the same BS; and the USA will lose its global influence over it once and for all.
With the US representing its interests and the USSR theirs. I don't see anything shocking or immoral about it...
It's all fine and dandy, except for one detail. The U.S. is supposed to represent a Christian civilization, essentially a good and moral country that stands up for its principles.
If the U.S. entered the war in 1941 primarily to fight against evil, portraying American GIs as good soldiers, then America brings prosperity and freedom, while the Soviets represent the opposite, being labeled as an axis of evil.
You have to ask yourself whether that is the truth or if there is some truth in it. My point is that if your propaganda is broadcast 24/7, you can't blame some people for believing it. If that is the case, then a moral judgment when the U.S. projects its propagandistic vision isn't that surprising, is it? After all, there was much more than propaganda; it was a promise, made voluntarily: The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US officially entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it
So all those gentlemen taking umbrage to the UK being called for treacherous treatment of its ally, Poland, or Poland being sold down the river (here enters glorious America and butt hurt Yankees), hold your horses. There was a promise; wouldn't it be a fact that those gentlemen go back on their word? If that is the case, shouldn't the honorable gentlemen at least pretend to be men and accept it with grace?
I don't drink, and of course I'm serious. Churchill was a convicted felon and WW1 war criminal who was a stereotypical representative of the British Empire. His arrogant personality made it impossible for him to not stick his meddling snout into Central European affairs in 1939. The U.K. - with the help of the USSR, USA and Commonwealth - ultimately won the war, but as a result it was bankrupted, and after the Suez crisis the golden days of the Empire were over once and for all. They paid the ultimate price for their stupid delusions of grandeur, and on top of that these self-proclaimed fighters for freedom and democracy sold out half of Europe to the Soviets. Eff them. Trump is following the same path down the drain.
That's kind of a myth.... not even Kruschev could just arbitrarily do that. It was based on real policy and even a kind of attempt (by weird soviet standards) to make things more efficient. It was dependent on water from Ukraine (so easier to coordinate in the same ssr) and they wanted to improve agriculture (Ukrainians have always been better farmers than russians). The idea it was some kind of spontaneous gesture or whatnot is a russian propaganda lie. Stop believing russian propaganda!
