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" ?


Meathead 5 | 473
2 Feb 2012 #91
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 true and often overlooked when discussing recent Polish history. Many Poles embraced communism (they don't now but they did then).
Ironside 51 | 11,337
2 Feb 2012 #92
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.'

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.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
2 Feb 2012 #93
collaborators and traitors affects those facts.

How would you define

collaborators and traitors

??
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #94
And how many were party members after the occupation? Sure you couldn't pee during communism without being a member.

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.

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

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?

The Polish Government in Exile existed until 1990.

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).

You could ask why in a country where 7 out of 8 people (87.5%) were non communist

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.

The allies couldnt do a thing militarily

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.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
2 Feb 2012 #95
How would you define
Ironside:
collaborators and traitors
??

Working with the enemy occupier.

Traitors working with the enemy occupier against one country - like a secret police or prominent position in the government.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
2 Feb 2012 #96
Working with the enemy occupier.

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?
kondzior 12 | 1,221
2 Feb 2012 #97
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.
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #98
certain jobs flatly required party membership. Like being a teacher.

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'.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
2 Feb 2012 #99
Like being a teacher. Or any managerial position.

No. Most weren't.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
2 Feb 2012 #101
Why not a) do the maths and b) look at cadet membership.
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #102
Yes. Most were.

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).
Barney 15 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #103
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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Operation unthinkable was always a non starter the first death rattle of a dying Empire, the US made them see sense.
kondzior 12 | 1,221
2 Feb 2012 #104
Depedns on the time period, obviously. Is was quite different during 1980s then during 1950s. And we are not talking about Physical Education teachers.
hythorn 3 | 580
2 Feb 2012 #105
Operation unthinkable was always a non starter the first death rattle of a dying Empire

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
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #106
A fig leaf Harry, a box ticking exercise nothing to discuss, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how it was otherwise.

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.

Just using the figures you provided if we are basing the numbers on party membership in the 1970s

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.

Operation unthinkable was always a non starter

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.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
2 Feb 2012 #107
There weren't any enemy occupiers,

no ? I say there were !

Peeing problems aside, certain jobs flatly required party membership. Like being a teacher.

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

and you'll have to be a bit more specific. What makes, say, one civil servant a 'collaborator', and another not?

I cannot be specific while talking in general terms.
Barney 15 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #108
more a case of Churchill being able to see Stalin for what he was

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

You are claiming that the government was imposed by the Soviets, you need to demonstrate that that was the case.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

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.

Well we will never know cos it didn’t happen. It was a nonstarter as I said
MediaWatch 10 | 945
2 Feb 2012 #109
From 1945 until the mid 50's - yes, it pretty much was. After then - no. There were just too many people with a stake in the system staying the way it was for it to be an occupation. If you look at who was repressing who - it was Poles repressing Poles. Allowing them to claim "Soviet" occupation is just an easy way out.

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?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
2 Feb 2012 #110
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.
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #111
The fig leaf the Provisional government provided was imposed by the Soviets.

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?

The Communist party had final say over who did what in that body and as we know the ultimate decision lay in Moscow.

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

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

And who was the 'government' in London representing? It was just as democratically elected as the Lublin government!
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
2 Feb 2012 #112
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?

The TRJN was a result of the negotiations held in Moscow between the Polish Communists, the Soviet Union, and Stanisław Mikołajczyk's faction from 17 June to 21 June. The Polish government-in-exile didn't recognize the TRJN[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_National_Unity
MediaWatch 10 | 945
2 Feb 2012 #113
Pity that you can provide not a shred of evidence to support that claim.

So you're saying the people of Poland could have made political decisions that Moscow didn't like?
Barney 15 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #114
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.
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #115
You can claim that there was no Soviet communist control over any other communist party

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.

The Provo Gov was formed partly from elements of the one in London not sanctioned by it.

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.

are you suggesting a free and equal negotiation took place?

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

The London Gov thought it was representing the Polish Nation as the mandate they held from the second republic wasn’t superseded by another.

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."
Barney 15 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #116
"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................................................ )
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #117
A lot of party members only functioned to serve themselves unfortunately that’s part of human nature.

On that we can certainly agree.

Edit:

I mean what is right?

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).
ShawnH 8 | 1,507
2 Feb 2012 #118
(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!
Harry
2 Feb 2012 #119
" 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.
ShawnH 8 | 1,507
3 Feb 2012 #120
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.


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.