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" ?


JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #61
I know exactly what occupation means; having a political system imposed upon you

Evidently not. Occupation is external military administration which is opposed by the international community.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #62
he last Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile would disagree with you on that.

You ask him first !
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #63
Occupation is external military administration which is opposed by the international community.

Jonny that is the same logic that allows one to use the phrase

"Not in an official capacity".
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #64
Harry get real, you'll be typing about the Prieure de Sion next

So you wish to claim that Mikolajczyk and the others from the government in exile were imposed on the people of Poland by the Soviets? Really?
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #65
Jonny that is the same logic that allows one to use the phrase

"Not in an official capacity".

that doesn't really make much sense. The definition of an occupation is very precise. Someone may not like a regime (though there were many in the PRL who liked it very much) but that doesn't make it an occupation.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
1 Feb 2012 #66
So you wish to claim that Mikolajczyk and the others from the government in exile were imposed on the people of Poland by the Soviets? Really?

stop rolling you fence sitter

Someone may not like a regime (though there were many in the PRL who liked it very much) but that doesn't make it an occupation.

So, according to you familiar with all those terms and all what PRL would be then - colony ?
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #67
So you wish to claim that Mikolajczyk and the others from the government in exile were imposed on the people of Poland by the Soviets? Really?

There is a guy on here who usually says something along the lines of
"Instead of responding to something I said you responded to something I didnt say"

Someone may not like a regime (though there were many in the PRL who liked it very much) but that doesn't make it an occupation.

The satellite states were given as much freedom to manoeuver as the Soviets allowed.

The definition of an occupation is very precise

Thankfully the world is not run by teachers or milk monitors.
peterweg 37 | 2,319
1 Feb 2012 #68
From 1945 until the mid 50's - yes, it pretty much was. After then - no

It took five years to install the occupation power, which then could continue to operate as a soviet puppet. Remember Marshal Law was imposed to prevent a re-invasion. So it was an occupation with threat of worse.

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).

Yet when they kicked out the Communists the Russians went too. How many people vote communist when they isn't a Russia invasion/occupation threat?
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #69
There is a guy on here who usually says something along the lines of
"Instead of responding to something I said you responded to something I didnt say"

The claim you made is that "The post war Polish governments were imposed by the Soviets i.e. puppet regimes." Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in post-war years; therefore you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets. I very much think that he would disagree rather strongly with you about that if he were able to do so.

The satellite states were given as much freedom to manoeuver as the Soviets allowed.

Which explains why both Albania and Romania refused to have any part at all in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

So it was an occupation with threat of worse.

Er, if the Soviets were already occupying Poland in 1981, they couldn't actually invade Poland.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #70
The satellite states were given as much freedom to manoeuver as the Soviets allowed.

Entirely natural given that they were in the USSR's sphere of influence, though the relationship between the Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR was in part determined by a balance between how keen the various states were to take part (in Poland's case, very) and how able the USSR was to influence factors.

Thankfully the world is not run by teachers or milk monitors.

No. It is run according to the rule of international statesmanship and diplomacy; which clearly, precisely and unambiguously defines 'occupation'. The PRL was not an occupation.
wladekor
1 Feb 2012 #71
Yes! Russian troops occupied Poland in 1944-45, suppressed all opposition by killing, deportations, and imprisonment, and maintained occupation troops in Poland till 1990. Occupation means unwelcome presence of military force and domination of the nation.
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #72
Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in post-war years; therefore you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets.

They did but were not recognised and in practice were an irrelevance. The two post war "entities" that were recognised were imposed, there is no therefore about it.

Which explains why both Albania and Romania refused to have any part at all in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Entirely natural given that they were in the USSR's sphere of influence, though the relationship between the Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR was in part determined by a balance between how keen the various states were to take part (in Poland's case, very) and how able the USSR was to influence factors.

The USSR exercised their ability to allow dissent, they waved the stick as they saw fit. That's why they all collapsed once that threat was removed.

No. It is run according to the rule of international statesmanship and diplomacy; which clearly, precisely and unambiguously defines 'occupation'.

Which is why they never occupied the Baltic states.....a convenient unspoken truth.
They made the rules to suit themselves.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #73
The USSR exercised their ability to allow dissent, they waved the stick as they saw fit. That's why they all collapsed once that threat was removed.

This does not make the PRL an occupation.

Which is why they never occupied the Baltic states.....a convenient unspoken truth.
They made the rules to suit themselves.

The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union. The rules, by the way, were there already.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #74
They did but were not recognised and in practice were an irrelevance. The two post war "entities" that were recognised were imposed, there is no therefore about it.

Please try harder: the Provisional Government of National Unity was a coalition between the 'eastern' and 'western' governments, Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in it and it was internationally recognised. If you wish to claim that it was imposed by the Soviets, you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets.
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #75
The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union.

They were annexed while under occupation.

The rules, by the way, were there already.

No they were not, Until the modern era recognition of a particular entity was dependant solely upon recognition by a larger power in effect Britain or France and to a lesser extent the Ottoman Empire. This was based upon military might, a kind of rule by the law of conkers. The League of Nations was the first attempt to codify international law in effect giving rights to smaller nations this body was founded by colonial powers just as the UN was.

This does not make the PRL an occupation

A puppet government, a Quisling state like Norway, described by the Allies as occupied.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #76
They were annexed while under occupation.

That doesn't relate to the fact that Poland wasn't occupied. Or annexed.

Until the modern era recognition of a particular entity was dependant solely upon recognition by a larger power in effect Britain or France and to a lesser extent the Ottoman Empire. This was based upon military might, a kind of rule by the law of conkers.

Much as it is now, except the responsibilities are spread more thinly. The effect is the same in Poland's case; either de facto or de jure the PRL wasn't an occupation.

A puppet government,

That's the last thing it was, as amply demonstrated in this thread.
Harry
1 Feb 2012 #77
A puppet government, a Quisling state like Norway

I wasn't aware that one in eight Norwegian adults were members of Nasjonal Samling. In fact I'm pretty sure that membership never went much past 30,000. But more than one in eight Polish adults were members of PZPR in the 1970s.
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #78
This does beg the questions why it lasted so long and when does a government becomes legitimate.
Controlling the food supply, housing, education and employment are all tools used to control a population especially one that hasn’t given its consent.
People did what they thought best to advance themselves. There is from necessity a degree of collaboration in any illegitimate system people can't be dammed for that nor can they be used to provide retrospective legitimacy.

The system was imposed by an other country that ensured it remained, that is occupation.

The point about the Baltic States is that these "clearly defined rules" were created to provide legitimacy. Quoting a textbook definition is entirely unhelpful, global international law is based upon precedent and as there is no supreme binding court to interpret and create precedent that role has been taken by the Security Council which is not unbiased.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
1 Feb 2012 #79
But more than one in eight Polish adults were members of PZPR in the 1970s.

And how many were party members after the occupation? Sure you couldn't pee during communism without being a member.

(and you don't get to call my grandparents traitors because I diagree with you hahaha:)

here's a read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupations#Poland]Soviet occupations (Wiki)

Poland

Main articles: Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union, Occupation of Poland (1939-1945), and Northern Group of Forces

Poland was the first country to be occupied by Soviet Union during the World War II era.

And on a personal note it had/has all the halmarks of an occupation, left on the mentality of the Polish people.

Here's another: Occupation of Poland
niePOlak
1 Feb 2012 #80
Sure you couldn't pee during communism without being a member.

You could pee but being a PZPR member was making life easier.My father became a PZPR member in order to get a flat sooner rather than later and he did get it fairly quickly.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #81
And how many were party members after the occupation?

One in eight, as written above. The occupation ended in the 1940s.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
1 Feb 2012 #82
The occupation ended in the 1940s.

IF we are talking about (paraphrase the title) would you classify Communism as "Soviet occupation", then nope, it didn't.

You know this already Jonny, you also know that you couldn't pee during communism without joining and that that was a simple fact of life and dispite the "brave" talk of somepeople, many at the time thought the occupation would never end, at least not in their lifetime.

Is it just for the sake of argument?

And to add to the debate, I think it is very wrong, for the Nazi Germans to take blame for their wrong doing and the winners of WWII, to get away with murder.

Just look at what happened with this whole Katastrofa Smoleńska and tell me it has nothing to do with the undercurrent feeling of grief Poles still have for Katyn.
gumishu 13 | 6,064
1 Feb 2012 #83
SeanBM:
Sure you couldn't pee during communism without being a member.

You could pee but being a PZPR member was making life easier.My father became a PZPR member in order to get a flat sooner rather than later and he did get it fairly quickly.

no you lie blatantly - your dad was and ardent communist just like 95 per cent of those 3 million people with PZPR member papers
niePOlak
1 Feb 2012 #84
It could be but he is saying that it was sekretarz organizacji zakładowej who convinced him to become communist when he told him Mister Kowalski WE know that you are waiting for a flat and soon we going to have some nice and new flats for our employees but the priority will be given to Party members.So he decided that it's better to be a communist with a flat than a non communist without one.
gumishu 13 | 6,064
1 Feb 2012 #85
we have already heard all such and even better excuses you commie germ :P
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
1 Feb 2012 #86
you couldn't pee during communism without joining

Most people didn't join. Only one in eight.

Just look at what happened with this whole Katastrofa Smoleńska

A tragic and straightforward accident, upon which some nutters have fixated and sought conspiracies that just aren't there. The same sort of people who say the PRL was an 'occupation.'
Barney 15 | 1,507
1 Feb 2012 #87
Please try harder: the Provisional Government of National Unity was a coalition between the 'eastern' and 'western' governments, Mikolajczyk and others from the Polish government in exile took part in it and it was internationally recognised. If you wish to claim that it was imposed by the Soviets, you are claiming that Mikolajczyk was imposed by the Soviets.

I really dont know how I missed this earlier, sorry.
Seriously Harry!

we have already heard all such and even better excuses you commie germ

Ah come on man.

Edit

A tragic and straightforward accident, upon which some nutters have fixated and sought conspiracies that just aren't there. The same sort of people who say the PRL was an 'occupation.'

That’s a big leap
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
1 Feb 2012 #88
Most people didn't join. Only one in eight.

Are you saying, to get certain things during communism, you didn't improve your chances by becoming a member? because that is what I am saying.

A tragic and straightforward accident, upon which some nutters have fixated and sought conspiracies that just aren't there. The same sort of people who say the PRL was an 'occupation.'

Perhaps I did not explain what I meant well enough,

Yes it was a tragic accident.

I firmly believe that the "fixated" "nutters" (as you call them) have an issue, that is the unresolved issue of Katyn.

I believe that many Polish people would have grieved and moarned the death of so many of thier known citizens but the fact they were going to comemorate Katyn, which Soviet Russia never appologised for, or really got any grief for, the way Nazi Germany has, toppled many over the top and still today I hear about the crash on the radio.

I think this is part of the postoccupied mentality of Poland that many just choose to either ignore or disbute, perhaps for thier own guilt in selling thier allies out? And perhaps they had no choice in letting Poland be occupied by Soviet Russia after the war because they were knackered, still doesn't change much.

And saying that people are "nutters and fixated" because they think the PRL was an occupation is just bad sportsmanship, old bean.
Barney 15 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #89
You could ask why in a country where 7 out of 8 people (87.5%) were non communist what forces kept the Communists in power. Was the regime held in place by the threat of military intervention from the USSR? Why is that not an occupation?

What makes a country governed in this way not subject to the will of a foreign country?

I think this is part of the postoccupied mentality of Poland that many just choose to either ignore or disbute, perhaps for thier own guilt in selling thier allies out? And perhaps they had no choice in letting Poland be occupied by Soviet Russia after the war because they were knackered, still doesn't change much.

The allies couldnt do a thing militarily nor did they have a moral leg to stand on as they were occupying many lands themselves.
Your right that's why it's disputed.
porzeczka - | 102
2 Feb 2012 #90
The last Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile would disagree with you on that.

Edward Szczepanik?
guardian.co.uk/news/2005/dec/19/guardianobituaries.mainsection

Stanisław Mikołajczyk escaped Poland in 1947 (with the help of British embassy) because he feared for his life. He wrote a book titled 'The rape of Poland: pattern of Soviet aggression' in which he described among others sovietization of Poland and falsification of 'Polish' elections.

---------------------------------------------------------
Worth reading:
Leonid Gibianskii (Institute of Slavic Studies - Russian Academy of Sciences) and Norman M. Naimark (Stanford University):

ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2004_817-16_Gibianskii.pdf

The Soviet Union and the establishement of communist regimes in eastern Europe, 1944-1954.

Without Soviet involvement, there would not be 'People's Republic of Poland'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Sixteen


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.