The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 221

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


Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #31
A colony? With 35 times more Polish communists than Soviet ones?

sources ?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
1 Feb 2012 #32
A colony? With 35 times more Polish communists than Soviet ones?

India was a British colony with 1 British administrator for several thousand Indians. So the above statistic is just plain silly.
100000 unwanted Russian troops on Polish soil who could not be removed without the soviet say so, means that it was an occupation. what is written on paper doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #33
sources ?

"By 1955 the force had been reduced to the 18th, 26th, and 27th Rifle Divisions, the 20th Tank Division, and the 26th Mechanised Division - probably numbering no more than 100,000 troops."

"In the end of the seventies PZPR had 3,5 million members."
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #34
The reality is that 'occupation' has a very precise meaning, defined under international law.

However :
#

1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.


/If the shoe fit ?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
1 Feb 2012 #35
100000 unwanted Russian troops

Furthermore to take this point further if a 1000000 Russian troops were to turn up on British soil, and did not leave but stationed themselves permanently, I think that the vast majority of reasonable minded and rational Brits would consider themselves occupied.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #36
So the people of Germany considered their country to be occupied in the 1970s when there were 277,342 in their country? No.

BTW, you somehow accidentally added an extra zero to the number of Russian troops in Poland.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #37
/If the shoe fit ?

Which it doesn't. The PRL government was legally recognised as such by neighbouring states, by the US, the UK, Franc and the entire United nations. Not an 'occupation'.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
1 Feb 2012 #38
The extra 0 was indeed an accident, and not creative accounting(: The German example does not apply for the following reasons.

1. Poland was not a country with a tainted history and a guilty conscience, who was happy to seek salvation in a foreign power.
2. The troops on German soil were representatives of democratic nations with idealist intentions. what is more those very same troops guaranteed German freedom by protecting them from the red hordes.

So what the German people thought is neither here of there, it doesn't come into consideration as the situation is simply not applicable. I am sure you know that.
gumishu 13 | 6,064
1 Feb 2012 #39
"In the end of the seventies PZPR had 3,5 million members."

and you strongly believe they were all soviet loving communists? my grandpa was in PZPR, see, but he used to listen to Głos Ameryki and Radio Wolna Europa - i'm not sure why did he join but it must have been some benefits (and they were minor for a basic member but it was this or nothing) - my grandpa fought in the AK and stayed attached even after the end of the war until pacification by LWP (it was £omża area)

Which it doesn't. The PRL government was legally recognised as such by neighbouring states, by the US, the UK, Franc and the entire United nations. Not an 'occupation'.

as recent as the beginning of 90's all countries in the world recognized Indonesia as a sovereign holder of East Timor - did this change the fact that East Timorese population didn't want to subjected to Indonesian rule and eventually broke free?
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #40
Which it doesn't. The PRL government was legally recognised as such by neighbouring states, by the US, the UK, Franc and the entire United nations. Not an 'occupatio

It raises an interesting question whether those stated above countries do not share responsibility for regime installed in Poland by soviet bayonets They do morally, there is no doubt about that. I wonder whether that responsibility should not be extended.

Occupants cannot create a new state out of the occupied territory, transfer or deport the population, nor change borders.
All that had been done by Soviets with the US, France and the UK approval.
So, we can daftly assume that your legal term is not worth the paper it is written on and carry on regardless.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #41
It raises an interesting question whether those stated above countries do not share responsibility for regime installed in Poland by soviet bayonets They do morally

By the same logic Poland would share responsibility for the vile regime in Myanmar who it not only recognises but also supplies arms to.

Occupants cannot create a new state out of the occupied territory, transfer or deport the population, nor change borders.

And they were not occupant, nor did those things occur after the PRL was established by law.

So, we can daftly assume that your legal term is not worth the paper it is written on and carry on regardless.

You have assumed very daftly indeed. The PRL were not occupiers, they were the legitimate and internationally recognised government of Poland.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #42
And they were not occupants.

Who were Soviets then ?
gumishu 13 | 6,064
1 Feb 2012 #43
JonnyM:
And they were not occupants.

Who were Soviets then ?

Soviets were allies ;)
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #44
the legitimate

I don't like that word.
It had been proved many times that what is legitimate very often is not right.
Wasn't Hitler's rule - legitimate?
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #45
Wasn't Hitler's rule - legitimate?

Entirely so, though it's interesting to note that when someone is trying to argue a point on the internet and is losing the argument that they sooner or later mention the Nazis.

It had been proved many times that what is legitimate very often is not right.

This nevertheless doesn't make the government of Poland 'an occupation' even though you didn't personally like them.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #46
my grandpa fought in the AK and stayed attached even after the end of the war until pacification by LWP

Strange that an AK member who joined the post-war formations was considered suitable for party membership, very strange. Normally AK members had a very hard time in the communist era, and those who had joined post-war formations had it even worse.

Poland was not a country with a tainted history and a guilty conscience,

Yes, it's not as if Poland had invaded or threatened to invade most of her neighbours or anything like that.

what is more those very same troops guaranteed German freedom by protecting them from the red hordes.

One could easily make the polar argument with regard to the Soviet troops on Polish soil, far more Poles supported the communists than supported the opposition (until the opposition gained critical mass).

So what the German people thought is neither here of there, it doesn't come into consideration as the situation is simply not applicable. I am sure you know that.

By your logic, what Polish people themselves thought is also neither here nor there: it doesn't come into consideration.

They do morally, there is no doubt about that. I wonder whether that responsibility should not be extended.

Question: how many millions of people from the UK/USA joined the Polish communist party? Perhaps responsibility should go to the nation which collaborated so willingly?
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #47
This nevertheless doesn't make the government of Poland 'an occupation' even though you didn't personally like them.

No, but that makes them traitors and puppets of their Kremlin masters !
Why was Poland called Soviet satellite not an ally if all was that simple and kosher?
Well, I don't like present government in Poland either but I wouldn't call them occupiers or puppets.
You haven't answered my question though - who were Soviets then ?

Entirely so, though it's interesting to note that when someone is trying to argue a point on the internet and is losing the argument that they sooner or later mention the Nazis.

I'm only referring to the common western iconography. Not that I'm loosing the argument, its rather that you are hiding behind definition without putting forward any other arguments. It is not good enough for me, sorry.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
1 Feb 2012 #48
Poles supported the communists than supported the opposition (until the opposition gained critical mass).

There was no opposition because it was eliminated by the same said occupying army, whilst the other half wasn't allowed to return home. The Germans on the other hand were allowed to elect who they wanted.

By your logic, what Polish people themselves thought is also neither here nor there: it doesn't come into consideration.

The Poles were not responsible for the war-news flesh.
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #49
Not an Occupation
Polish citizens born and bred ran the country which was a multiparty state.

Very few Soviet troops remained in Poland after the mid 50s. The few that remained did so as an act of friendship.

Everyone sent ambassadors so they all recognised the PRL as legitimate.

Occupation
The appointment of people into positions of power was controlled through the Communist party which was ultimately controlled from Moscow.

Soviet troops could not be removed no matter what their number as millions were just across the border.

Recognition at the UN for the PRL is a joke, the UN was established by the colonial powers.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #50
Perhaps responsibility should go to the nation which collaborated so willingly?

collaborated ? you mean you agree with me that there was a Soviet occupation ?
gumishu 13 | 6,064
1 Feb 2012 #51
your knowledge is a book knowledge Harry, accept it - maybe my grandpa simpy avoided being caught with arms in his hands and nobody has given him in (I don't know that exactly - just know that they fought 'the people's rule' for a time - maybe his company or whatever it was got dissolved and didn't continue to fight (there was some amnesty in 1945 or 1946) - if nobody knew of his involvement with the AK then what was the problem especially that he joined somewhere in the late 70's and the climate back then was changed siginificantly

- btw he moved with the whole family from up north to Opole area -
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #52
The Germans on the other hand were allowed to elect who they wanted.

Really? And what if they had wanted to vote Nazi, could they do that? Would the US government have stood by and let a Nazi government take office? Would the Polish government have stood by?
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #54
collaborated ? you mean you agree with me that there was a Soviet occupation ?

If there was an occupation, then the nation most certainly did collaborate. Pick which one you prefer.

Off topic hypothetical.

So you mean you've lost the argument. Fair enough.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #55
In your opinion. Re. the 'Soviet satellite' thing, Poland was, after all, in the Warsaw Pact rather than NATO. In answer to your question, 'Soviets' were assemblies of workers maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat in certain countries. But not Poland.

Not all single (or no) party states are occupations. It is an irrelevance.

They remained in accordance with the Warsaw Pact.

True - it was recognised as legitimate.

This is not a definition of occupation.By the same twisted logic, you could say that Chile under Pinochet was occupied by the US.

Could Britain 'remove' the US troops?

A meaningless phrase. It was established by the former member states of the League of Nations, led by the US.

Next!
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #56
If there was an occupation, then the nation most certainly did collaborate. Pick which one you prefer.

Are you fence sitter ?
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #57
We are talking about Poland which was run by Polish people in a multi party system with Russian troops barracked as part of a military alliance there is nothing there is suggest occupation in fact it was recognised by most if not other states.

Is that what you are saying?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

This is not a definition of occupation

It is a definition the British were happy to use for Norway in the second war but interestingly not for Iceland.

By the same twisted logic, you could say that Chile under Pinochet was occupied by the US.

I wouldn’t have described British logic as twisted.

Could Britain 'remove' the US troops?

Why would they want to? The presence of foreign troops doesn’t mean occupation, uninvited troops usually does.
Britain invited the US to the UK Poland didn’t invite the Soviets.
The post war Polish governments were imposed by the Soviets i.e. puppet regimes.

A meaningless phrase

Not really the colonial powers that created the UN were not going to cut their own throats surely you are not going to deny the colonial nature of the big 5?

Realising the reality of their (in)abilities to influence each other they recognised the de facto spheres of influence so The UK, France and The USA (Plus a host of smaller colonial states) recognised Soviet Satellite states (Occupied East Europe among other places) and the Soviet union recognised de facto western colonialism by sending ambassadors.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #58
It is a definition the British were happy to use for Norway in the second war but interestingly not for Iceland.

Check out the definition of occupation.

I wouldn’t have described British logic as twisted.

Nor would I - the logic in your post however is as twisted as a double helix.

Why would they want to? The presence of foreign troops doesn’t mean occupation, uninvited troops usually does.
Britain invited the US to the UK Poland didn’t invite the Soviets.
The post war Polish governments were imposed by the Soviets i.e. puppet regimes.

Post Bierut, they were very far from being 'puppet regimes' and not an occupation.

Not really the colonial powers that created the UN were not going to cut their own throats surely you are not going to deny the colonial nature of the big 5?

Absolutely. The world has always been organised into spheres of influence - and the United Nations is definitely not any sort of colonialism as you seem to be limply implying.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #59
The post war Polish governments were imposed by the Soviets i.e. puppet regimes.

The last Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile would disagree with you on that.
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #60
I know exactly what occupation means; having a political system imposed upon you, reinforced by military power that fluxuates in strength with time and events coupled with the threat of remedial action. I don’t see what's twisted about that logic?

Surely you are not suggesting the post war elections were fair and free.

Recognising each others foibles is part of a good marriage the UN is one such marriage.

Edit

The last Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile would disagree with you on that.

Harry get real, you'll be typing about the Prieure de Sion next


Home / History / Would you classify the Poland's Communist years as a "Soviet occupation" ?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.