The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [19]  |  Archives [1] 
 
User: Guest

History   144 posts«« 1 - page 3 of 5

Polish Officer in NATO, Col. Ryszard Kukliński.


Harry    
14 Feb 2012  #61
Changing the topic to something more convenient?

The discussion is about Kuklinski, in particular whether he was a patriot. If he was a Polish patriot, why did he renounce all allegiance to Poland?
boletus 30 | 1,367    
14 Feb 2012  #62
to Poland?

Try Polish People's Republic.
And you also have no clue what kind of deal he made with US authority, Think for example about dual citizenship:

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

So let us stop here with your old boring tune and go back to the topic.
Bzibzioh    
14 Feb 2012  #63
If he was a Polish patriot, why did he renounce all allegiance to Poland?

Read Boletus' post. It's in bold letters.
JonnyM 12 | 2,629    
14 Feb 2012  #64
No. He broke his oath and was a traitor. Maybe he had a crisis of conscience, maybe there were less noble reasons but he did it all the same. I He may have thought he was doing the right thing, as Bradley Manning did, but the act of treason is still the same.

I wonder if those who were so quick to defend Kuklinski feel the same about Kim Philby.......
Harry    
14 Feb 2012  #65
The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,

No, but specifically stating " I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" does mean that he renounces all allegiance to, in this case, Poland.

Try Polish People's Republic.

And also RPII.

I wonder if those who were so quick to defend Kuklinski feel the same about Kim Philby......

We can also compare him to the man who writes under the name Viktor Suvorov: a Russian/Ukrainian officer in GRU who passed information to the west and still has a sentence of death waiting for him any time he goes to Russia.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
14 Feb 2012  #66
We can also compare him to the man who writes under the name Viktor Suvorov: a Russian/Ukrainian officer in GRU who passed information to the west and still has a sentence of death waiting for him any time he goes to Russia.

No we cannot ! All stems from the fact that PRL wasn't an independent country.
As for Suvorov - are you condoning Bolsheviks!? Yes I think that you are!
Harry    
14 Feb 2012  #67
No we cannot ! All stems from the fact that PRL wasn't an independent country.

a) Neither was Ukraine. And nor, for that matter, was Russia. And even if they were, they were as certainly as with Poland not free countries. So Suvorov can easily claim that, in the same way as Kuklinski, he was acting for the good of his people (it seems rather apparent that they don't believe him, seeing how he is still under a sentence of death).

As for Suvorov - are you condoning Bolsheviks!?

Before you dare call him a Bolshevik, you may wish to first read his memoirs.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
14 Feb 2012  #68
a) Neither was Ukraine. And nor, for that matter, was Russia. And even if they were, they were as certainly as with Poland not free countries.

Russia was free enough even ruled by murderous regime - nothing new for Russia. There were never such country as Ukraine.
boletus 30 | 1,367    
14 Feb 2012  #69
No. He broke his oath and was a traitor. Maybe he had a crisis of conscience, maybe there were less noble reasons but he did it all the same.

Why do I even bother arguing with you if you conveniently ignore my arguments and just repeat your own ones ad nausea. So for the last time:

The 1952 military oath was enforced on all the conscripts, whether they liked it or not. It was executed under threat and, as such, it had no moral or ethical value. It is not the same as swearing something voluntarily, as in the scouting, professional military, underground military organizations, etc. So stop dignifying the PRL military oath by bringing it to the same level as the rest.
JonnyM 12 | 2,629    
14 Feb 2012  #70
ignore my arguments

You aren't really making any arguments. You're just trying to duck the issue with half-truths and evasion.

The 1952 military oath was enforced on all the conscripts,

Not unusual for a military oath - unless you know of a country that lets its soldiers pick and choose.

conscripts

He was a colonel, you know.

as such, it had no moral or ethical value

So the oath a defendant or witness in court has to take has "no moral or ethical value" because they are forced to take it?

professional military,

See above, though it's worth repeating, he was an Officer, not an enlisted man.

dignifying the PRL military oath

Almost every officer (and there were many thousands) except him treated it with dignity and didn't break it by betraying his country.
boletus 30 | 1,367    
14 Feb 2012  #71
What half-truth and what evasion? Care to elaborate?

Let me remind you that my first response to your post was not about Kukliński, but about your statement that a soldier never breaks his oath, or something like this. And it is still about it. But you just helped me to take a stronger position regarding the man himself. I am now convinced that he was right. Good job..

unless you know of a country that lets its soldiers pick and choose

Surely I know. That country was called Poland or would be Poland. Just going back to the Great War and later - there were many Polish voluntary military units. They all swore their own oaths and some refused taking foreign oaths.

Just few examples:
+ voluntary Polish Legions, I and III Brigades, refused taking additional oath of loyalty to Kaiser Wilhelm in 1917.
+ voluntary Polish Army in France 1918, commanded by Józef Haller
+ voluntary insurgents of Greater Poland Uprising 1918-1919. They also have their oath too.
+ voluntary Home Army
+ voluntary Cichociemni
+ voluntary Szare Szeregi, Grey Ranks, scouting
+ Even communist People's Guard was voluntary
+ Polish AK units operating near Wilno refused swearing Russian loyalty oath, after being disarmed. Consequently, they were sent to Kaługa and gulags near Moscow.

There are no other Polish military oaths, like those enacted in 1950 and 1952, where conscripts were swearing their obedience to a political system, its authority, its government, its protection of working class (but no other class), to friendship with Soviet Army, etc. Not even those enacted earlier in 1944 and 1947.

Contrary to those, the newest one, 1992 military oath, is plain simple and not politicized:
I, soldier of Polish Army, swear to faithfully serve the Polish Republic, to defend its independence and borders. To uphold the Constitution, to guard the honour of the Polish soldier, to defend the military flag. For the cause of my homeland in need I will not spare my own blood or life. So help me God.

So, here is no obedience to Soviet Union, to Tusk or to Kaczyński, or to NATO, etc. And, as long as we are not at war, the military is professional, and their oath is voluntary too. No oath, no professional soldiery.

So the oath a defendant or witness in court has to take has "no moral or ethical value" because they are forced to take it?

No, but I can refuse taking any oath whatsoever on the basis of civil disobedience of any sort, including moral and ethical reasons.

You must have heard about "Ruch Wolność i Pokój" (Freedom and Peace Movement) (1885-1992), a Polish pacifist organization, opposing communism, and about Marek Adamkiewicz, who - after refusal of taking the military oath - was convicted and imprisoned in December 1984 r. in Stargard Szczeciński prison. And Marek Adamkiewicz refused taking that oath, for precisely these reasons, which I emphasized in the post #56.
JonnyM 12 | 2,629    
14 Feb 2012  #72
Read your post carefully. Pure casuistry and evasion. A lovely example of that is when you try to pretend that a soldier can choose his oath by looking up the names of various wartime volunteer detachments.

Citing a committed pacifist (which Colonel Kuklinski was not) is just a distraction.

Kuklinski was a senior officer in his country's army. One oath to serve. He betrayed that country and was tried and sentenced for his crimes. That sentence outlived the PRL

I wonder if you think Kim Philby was justified in doing the same in the name of ideology?
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
14 Feb 2012  #73
Kuklinski was a senior officer in his country's army.

While it's completely understandable that very low level officers and soldiers may choose to completely disregard the oath - he simply wouldn't have risen to the position that he did without stamping on a few faces along the way.
boletus 30 | 1,367    
14 Feb 2012  #74
he simply wouldn't have risen to the position that he did without stamping on a few faces along the way.

That's the only contra-argument that make sense to me. I'll think about it, till tomorrow. But I have to go now.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
14 Feb 2012  #75
For me, it shows the interesting double standards at play - his family were known socialists, he had risen to a high position within the Army which must have meant total obedience to the Party - and this, from Wikipedia - if it's true, then...

Kukliński was the chief of a military strategic command planning division of the Polish army, he was the liaison between the Polish army and the command of the Soviet military. He was very familiar with the layout of the Polish forces within the Warsaw Pact. While details of the general plans for the Warsaw Pact forces were known only in Moscow, Kukliński could infer much from his contacts at the Moscow high command headquarters.

He would surely never have risen to such a position without being highly trusted by those in charge.

What's also interesting is the claim that unless Poland pardoned him, the US would block Polish accession to NATO. Wonder if it's true?
Barney 14 | 1,472    
14 Feb 2012  #76
An oath is an oath. No ifs or buts.

This may be off topic if it is I apologise.

I know someone whose Mother was made a widow cos her husband was hanged in South Africa (she remarried) He grew up in England married my best mates sister in law live in Dublin now.

The man, a white South African was hanged for treason he swore an oath when he joined the military there. He was young and that’s what you did growing up in South Africa

I worked with the brother of the last man to be sentenced to death in the North of Ireland (Full exclosure: the guy I worked with was interned and later held on remand for a long time) even though he knew the sentence would be commuted the effect destroyed his life He didn’t do what he was convicted of but didn’t defend himself because of his oath, He though he was doing the right thing at the time.

The brother I knew said to me on more than one occasion that when you are young and being attacked you will do anything especially if, and I quote "An older man puts a gun in your hand". These people took oaths, binding oaths, yet were allowed to just live normal unimpeded lives.

Treachery is not just breaking an oath or if you want betraying your country it also goes the other way if you take an oath you expect the other party to also honour the oath.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
14 Feb 2012  #77
Kuklinski was a senior officer in his country's army. One oath to serve. He betrayed that country and was tried and sentenced for his crimes

Well it is not for you to decide and never was. It is just your opinion and come to think about it not that overtly important. That is Up to Poles to decide you can tell us what you think about Kim Philby.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
14 Feb 2012  #78
Well it is not for you to decide and never was.

What is interesting is that Poland very reluctantly pardoned him - and it seems that Poland only did so after very heavy pressure from the Americans.
Harry    
14 Feb 2012  #79
It's also interesting that the gentleman never chose to again live in Poland.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
14 Feb 2012  #80
not surprising given that KGB cronies and co-workers were pretty much in charge in Poland.
MediaWatch 10 | 945    
15 Feb 2012  #81
Yes some are still in charge. They are the Enemy Within Poland.

Some post-commie scumballs have again defaced the Kraków memorial to the First Polish Officer in NATO, Col. Ryszard Kukliński who supplied America with the Evil Empire's secret plans.

This looks like the actions of the Enemy Within of Poland and or their lackeys.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
15 Feb 2012  #82
Yes some are still in charge. They are the Enemy Within Poland.

Who? We need names, MediaWatch.

This looks like the actions of the Enemy Within of Poland and or their lackeys.

Or perhaps it's the actions of people who see him as having betrayed Poland? The fact that the statue was covered in nationalist slogans certainly suggests that it was the work of right wingers in this case.

But who is the Enemy Within MediaWatch? We need names!

It's also interesting that the gentleman never chose to again live in Poland.

Would you, after having spectacularly betrayed your country and left it open to being destroyed?
Foreigner4 12 | 1,777    
15 Feb 2012  #83
He broke his oath and was a traitor.

-a traitor to whom?
MediaWatch 10 | 945    
15 Feb 2012  #84
But who is the Enemy Within MediaWatch? We need names!

What is your real name?
Harry    
15 Feb 2012  #85
not surprising given that KGB cronies and co-workers were pretty much in charge in Poland.

Why do the likes of you always so badly want to insult Poland? Poland in the 1990s and the 2000s was most certainly not in the grip of the KGB, as all of us who actually lived here then know.

Yes some are still in charge. They are the Enemy Within Poland.

Still giving it the old 'namely conspirators' excuse, eh? But how many can you name who betrayed Poland, left her essentially defenceless and did nothing to warn those whose lives were going to be torn apart by martial law? Let's have a competition to see who can name more to such people. I'll start: Ryszard Kuklinski. Your turn.
MediaWatch 10 | 945    
15 Feb 2012  #86
Why do the likes of you always so badly want to insult Poland? Poland in the 1990s and the 2000s was most certainly not in the grip of the KGB, as all of us who actually lived here then know.

According to...*cough*.....HARRY LOL

Just kidding Harry.

Still giving it the old 'namely conspirators' excuse, eh? But how many can you name who betrayed Poland, left her essentially defenceless and did nothing to warn those whose lives were going to be torn apart by martial law? Let's have a competition to see who can name more to such people. I'll start: Ryszard Kuklinski. Your turn.

As for people who have betrayed Poland past and present.....OK....my turn.......What's your real name?

lol
Harry    
15 Feb 2012  #87
According to...*cough*.....HARRY LOL

Perhaps you can go into detail about the people in positions of power in Poland in the 1990s and 2000s who were KGB cronies and co-workers?

Didn't think so.

As for people who have betrayed Poland past and present.....OK....my turn.......What's your real name?

No, your turn is to name people who betrayed Poland past or present. Firstly I've never done anything to harm Poland or put her in a position to be harmed (unlike Kuklinski). Secondly I owe Poland no loyalty at all (unlike Kuklinski). Thirdly I've done plenty to help Poland (unlike Kuklinski, and you). Oh, and I choose to live and pay taxes in Poland when given the opportunity to do both elsewhere (unlike both you and Kuklinski).
JonnyM 12 | 2,629    
15 Feb 2012  #88
Well it is not for you to decide and never was

You do realise this is a discussion forum?

you think about Kim Philby.

A question asked but avoided. It seems you think the idea of treason depends on the politics of the countries involved.

the Enemy Within of Poland

The what?

If anything, the 'memorial' is most likely to have been defaced by army veterans.
boletus 30 | 1,367    
15 Feb 2012  #89
But how many can you name who betrayed Poland, left her essentially defenceless and did nothing to warn those whose lives were going to be torn apart by martial law?

source: Jerzy Urban
[Just a reminder: Urban, press spokesman for WRON, first planted the Kukliński's story to Washington Post then he reaped his harvest during his June 6, 1986 conference]. Good choice Harry.

I am not going to respond to that. Other people, including Kukliński himself, have done it many times already during the last 20 years or so. Dig it out!

But let me point out to the article of Adam Michnik in Gazeta Wyborcza, May 10-11, 1998, entitled "The Trap of Political Beautification" [actually reprinted in 2009 as "On Col. Ryszard Kukliński writes Adam Michnik - year 1998. The article is actually criticizing Kukliński for engaging in the politics of the Right during his visit to Poland in 1998 and the attempts of his beautification as a hero. However, Michnik closes with these words: I think that it is time to understand that in Poland there will always be some who consider Kuklinski a hero and some who consider Jaruzelski a hero, and we will have to live with that.

Now Harry, please, we already know your opinion on this subject very well - as well as those of Delphi and JonniM - and this is just enough. Contrary to what one father of propaganda said - repetitive naming a blue thing as red will not actually change it to red. There is no way you can convince or convert anybody here.

There are many good sources available out there on Internet - much more authoritative, interesting and informative than what you can offer here during your hysterical forays.

Here is one: "The Vilification and Vindication of Colonel Kuklinski, Entangled in History" by Benjamin B. Fisher.

Yes, this article is written by somebody from CIA library staff, but if you find me a better, more objective and thorough source I will buy you a cookie. It is really worth reading.

So please, stop being such bores and let us all go for a walk or something.
Harry    
15 Feb 2012  #90
Yes, this article is written by somebody from CIA library stuff,

So to you one of Kuklinski's American co-workers is the best and most objective source but one of his Polish colleagues is nothing but the father of propaganda. Curious.

your hysterical forays.

Please do stop being so boring with your personal insults. Instead perhaps you'd like to speculate why a Polish patriot who supposedly only ever acted for the good of Poland refused to live in Poland once Poland became a free state?




Home / History / Polish Officer in NATO, Col. Ryszard Kukliński.
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.