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

So true and often overlooked when discussing recent Polish history. Many Poles embraced communism (they don't now but they did then).

OOO?
Sticking to some definition with limited usefulness for describing reality is a sign of narrow-mindedness.
To be honest I don't care about made up definitions if they fail to describe reality, those people who do are living in the la-la land or don't care about the truth for any number of reasons.

PRL was a Soviet Occupation because that state was built by the Soviet military power and maintained because of the Soviet military power. No number of Polish born employees of the state, collaborators and traitors affects those facts.

How would you define


??

3.5 million, as has been pointed out repeatedly. And yes one most certainly could pee during communism without being a member. Tens of millions of Poles managed it.


Interesting that you don't try to discuss any of the facts in the post. Annoyed that the truth about your 'statement' has been come out?


Funny how the article you quote from fails to mention that for much of the period from 1945 to 1990 there were actually two governments in exile (both, of course, being self-appointed).


First one would need to ask for the source of your claim that 7 out of 8 people were non communist. You do have a source for that, don't you? I'd hate to think that you're just pulling things from the air to support your position.


Actually they could have done something. The British planned an operation but it was cancelled due to the Americans preferring to focus on the war with Japan.

Working with the enemy occupier.

Traitors working with the enemy occupier against one country - like a secret police or prominent position in the government.

There weren't any enemy occupiers, and you'll have to be a bit more specific. What makes, say, one civil servant a 'collaborator', and another not?

Peeing problems aside, certain jobs flatly required party membership. Like being a teacher. Or any managerial position. And there where times, when it seemed that communisem will never be overthrown. So some people just tried to make a living around it. Higher ranking party members had no choice but going to Church in secrect, baptise children in different towns, then they lived in, and so on.

Communists, that really believed in it? Don't know. About 5%, I'd say.

Absolute rubbish!

'I had to join the party, I had no other choice' is as valid an excuse as 'I didn't want to sign the Deutsche Volksliste, I had no other choice'.

No. Most weren't.

Yes. Most were.

Why not a) do the maths and b) look at cadet membership.

Rubbish. Of the teachers I know and have known who were old enough to have been members, only two were in the party (both of whom were thoroughly nasty pieces of work who no doubt would have collaborated with the Nazis if they had been given half a chance).

A fig leaf Harry, a box ticking exercise nothing to discuss, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how it was otherwise.


Just using the figures you provided if we are basing the numbers on party membership in the 1970s; perhaps the zenith of PRL would be a good point to take a snapshot. Alternatively we could take the McCarthy approach but that would be entirely unhelpful.


Operation unthinkable was always a non starter the first death rattle of a dying Empire, the US made them see sense.

Depedns on the time period, obviously. Is was quite different during 1980s then during 1950s. And we are not talking about Physical Education teachers.

more a case of Churchill being able to see Stalin for what he was
Churchill had aspirations to increase the British sphere of influence in certain countries such as Greece

You are claiming that the government was imposed by the Soviets, you need to demonstrate that that was the case. I need to merely point out that the fact the last Prime Minister of the government in exile and other members of that government were part of the provisional government of national unity shows that your claim is at best erroneous.


No, those figures show that 1 in 8 Polish adults were in the PZPR; they do not provide any information at all about the number who were "non communist". Please feel free to provide a source for your claim.


UK + Commonwealth USA + Poland + rearmed German forces + nuclear weapons = more than the USSR could have dealt with. But remove the USA (or to be more exact, their nukes) from equation and there is a very different result.

no ? I say there were !


Right, one correction being a teacher didn't require party membership but being head-master did.


I cannot be specific while talking in general terms.

More than that Churchill was a rabid anti communist with delusions of his own genius which he demonstrated while first lord of the Admiralty.


The fig leaf the Provisional government provided was imposed by the Soviets. The Communist party had final say over who did what in that body and as we know the ultimate decision lay in Moscow.


"Not in an official capacity" so they were not representing anyone except themselves.


And 7 in 8 were not members of the PZPR AKA The Communist party the one controlled from Moscow, not a bunch of pre war splitters.
The Non Party Communists who you hint at would be very difficult to count. So it’s reasonable to assume my interpretation of the figures you provided is correct with an acceptable margin of error of course.

Designating Independents as Communist or others as communist is a subjective thing to be doing that has no place in a rational examination of history.


Well we will never know cos it didn’t happen. It was a nonstarter as I said

You have to be kidding me.

Where do I even begin here? LOL

This answer of yours is proof that you are of Russian ancestry....not to mention an ethno-centric Russian nationalist at heart.

The whole world saw Poland and other central and east European countries controlled by Moscow from 1945-1990 as Soviet occupied. Was the whole world wrong?

The whole world didn't - in fact, quite the opposite. Your knowledge of international relations during that time seems to be as good as your Polish language skills.

Now, leave the serious historical discussions for the adults.

The provisional government of national unity was not imposed by the Soviets. Well, not unless Mikolajczyk and the others from the London govt took their orders from Moscow. Is that really what you want to claim?


Pity that you can provide not a shred of evidence to support that claim.


And who was the 'government' in London representing? It was just as democratically elected as the Lublin government!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_National_Unity

So you're saying the people of Poland could have made political decisions that Moscow didn't like?

Wading through treacle on a Thursday afternoon who would have thunk it. You can claim that there was no Soviet communist control over any other communist party but I assume you know that that is ridiculous. The Provo Gov was formed partly from elements of the one in London not sanctioned by it. Stalinist parties were not exactly well known for their habit of reaching decisions by means of consensus, are you suggesting a free and equal negotiation took place?

The London Gov thought it was representing the Polish Nation as the mandate they held from the second republic wasn’t superseded by another. That was as deluded a position as claiming that Provo Gov Negotiations were fair.

Do I really? Where? Perhaps you can quote from and link to the post in which I say it? Either that or simply admit that you are lying when you make the claim.


Elements led by the Prime Minister of the London government. And of course the London government did not sanction the Warsaw government: the only people who remained in the London government were those who opposed the formation of the provisional government of national unity, all the people who had been in the London government joined the provisional government of national unity.


Do you have even a shred of evidence that the negotiations were unfair and not free? Didn’t think so.


Correction: the mandate which they had awarded themselves.

Oops. I mean to say "And of course the London government did not sanction the Warsaw government: the only people who remained in the London government were those who opposed the formation of the provisional government of national unity, all the people who had been in the London government the provisional government of national unity and supported the idea of joined the provisional government of national unity."

"You can claim" you have the ability to claim. Do you deliberately misunderstand in an attempt to side track any discussion?

Back to Poland, there were undoubtedly a lot of non party members happy with the situation, the numbers lifted out of absolute poverty were huge, people had work and something affordable to eat which was not always the case before, housing was also better. A lot of party members only functioned to serve themselves unfortunately that’s part of human nature.

Of course I have no evidence to suggest how many were
a)Happy with their jobs
b)Happy with their food
b1)sometimes
b2)a lot of the time dot dot dot

Etc until ground down with the boredom of an undiscriminating contrary mind.

Edit
You are right, always will be right and always have been right. (Of course I have no evidence for that. I mean what is right? Does it mean politically right and what do I mean by politically? Politically with a capital p or small p. is it the same as correct................................................ )

On that we can certainly agree.

Edit:


At least with history, there are certain truths: events either happened or did not happen. For example, the provisional government of national unity was indeed formed after negotiations between the Lublin and London governments and it was not imposed by Moscow (not unless Mikolajczyk took his orders from Moscow).

He is one of only a few members of the government in exile that went to the negotiations, and he was betrayed!

" He is one of only a few members of the government in exile that went to the negotiations, and he was betrayed!"
Betrayed by who? (Genuine question)

One thing that has to be said about him: he had balls.

By the Soviets. He bargained in good faith, had come to a compromise, and they back pedalled and renegged on the offered compromises. But then again, he wasn't exactly bargaining from a strong position, now was he. Who held all the chips? Posession being 9/10ths of the law and all.