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" ?


MediaWatch 10 | 945
5 Feb 2012 #181
It doesn't change anything - Poles oppressed Poles after 1956, not the Soviets.
As much as you cling to hypothetical situations and so on - the basic facts are that Poles were doing the dirty work, not Soviets or anyone else.

You can't change the fact that it was a guy from a patriotic Polish Catholic family of noble origins who dealt a decisive blow to Poles at that time.

Of course, much of the "opposition" had family members in prominent positions. And let's not forget that many people were members of the Party through their jobs - not many people refused good work on the grounds of mandatory Party membership.

So you never heard of puppet governments?? Don't tell me a guy like you who is interested in history never heard of puppet governments??

The Communist Poles who oppressed other Poles, were simply puppets of Moscow. A predator nation having a proxy puppet government in the nation its controlling has been going on since the beginning of aggressor nations controlling other nations. Its actually quite wise and effective for the predator nation to do.

The Nazi Germans did the same with puppet governments with nations that they controlled. They had a select group of people in the nation they were controlling, control that nation on their behalf with a carrot and stick approach. They would select people in that given country and basically tell them they and their whole country would be harmed if they didn't carry out their orders and they also gave them the carrot incentive where they would be given priviledges and power over the other people in their country if they followed their Nazi orders.

Moscow is now doing this today in Chechnya. It has empowered select ethnic Chechens acting as a puppet government to control all the other Chechens.

Indeed Moscow doesn't have to worry about getting its hands dirty in Chechnya when it can have ethnic Chechens do its dirty work. But I am sure that if these ruling Chechens went against Moscow, that Moscow would send in its troops to straighten them out.

Without a doubt. One thing to bear in mind that in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 - there were a willing cadre of Party members who were happy to stab their comrades in the back to retain power. If all the comrades had turned round and said ***** you" (or a First Secretary who commanded immense personal loyalty, like Tito) - the Soviet Union would have had a hell of a problem on their hands.

Indeed the Soviet Union would have had a hell of a problem on its hands if all of the Polish ruling class rebelled against Moscow. But the Polish ruling class pretty much had fresh memories of what the Soviets did to Poles who were "a hell of a problem" and against Moscow. Its called KATYN.

The Polish ruling class had two choices.

1) They could rule like dictators against their fellow Poles, but at least be gauranteed their lives from Moscow and even have a comfortable empowered life in Poland with Moscow's blessing.....

OR

2) They could be rounded up by Soviet troops and become victims of another KATYN.

If you were them, WHAT would you choose??
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
5 Feb 2012 #182
So you never heard of puppet governments?? Don't tell me a guy like you who is interested in history never heard of puppet governments??

It wasn't a puppet government. If it was, Gomułka would never have stood up to Moscow, Kania would never have refused to "sort things out" and so on. It was Communist and in the Warsaw Pact - but not a puppet government.

The Communist Poles who oppressed other Poles, were simply puppets of Moscow.

This was true up until 1956 - but after that, they were actively encouraging the Soviet presence in Poland.

There is a difference - the Communists put loyalists in charge, whereas with the Nazi model - they had Germans in place to make sure that their will was followed. This wasn't the case after 1956 in Poland - there are enough examples where Poland followed a different path to the Soviet Union. It was a tinpot regime, but not a puppet regime. Generally speaking - Poles dealt with Polish affairs within the constraints of the system.

Moscow is now doing this today in Chechnya. It has empowered select ethnic Chechens acting as a puppet government to control all the other Chechens.

Do you honestly prefer Islamist Chechen terrorists over Russian Christian rule? In Poland - you'll find people are actually more pro-Russia in this case.

Indeed the Soviet Union would have had a hell of a problem on its hands if all of the Polish ruling class rebelled against Moscow. But the Polish ruling class pretty much had fresh memories of what the Soviets did to Poles who were "a hell of a problem" and against Moscow. Its called KATYN.

For once, a fair assessment. Katyn would certainly have played on the minds of the Polish Army elite, not least Jaruzelski. But - to be fair - they weren't a problem. Poland was thoroughly defeated in 1939 - Katyn was simply a way of making sure that the elite of the Polish Army couldn't come back to haunt them.

But yes, if the PZPR elite had turned on Moscow (especially Gomułka or Jaruzelski) - then we could've seen a hell of a fight. I actually would (in 1980) rate Poland's chances of winning as being quite high - defensively, Poland would have had the Oder/Bug and the mountains on their side.

If you were them, WHAT would you choose??

I don't criticise anyone for the decisions they made during that time. I don't think people can be blamed for wanting a better life for themselves and their families, and I have no issue with people doing what they could. It might not have been "honourable" - but it was certainly pragmatic.
TheOther 6 | 3,692
5 Feb 2012 #183
But at that time, the Polish elite still thought that the Nazis were responsible for Katyn, not the Soviets.
Barney 15 | 1,507
5 Feb 2012 #184
Have you still time to edit that?

Do you honestly prefer Islamist Chechen terrorists over Russian Christian rule?

Fight back and you're a terrorist do nothing and you give legitimacy to the state, so says the law?
TheOther 6 | 3,692
5 Feb 2012 #185
Have you still time to edit that?

Are you saying that the Polish army elite knew all the time that the Soviets were responsible for the crime, but went along with the lie that the Nazis did it for political reasons?
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161
5 Feb 2012 #186
Without a doubt.

Well, then you have quite unusual views on these matters...

Hungary 56 or Czechoslovakia 68 proved that Soviets were determined to retain control over Central Europe. Actually it had been obvious from a start... Europe was divided into democratic/capitalistic "west" and "east" under Soviet control, no one asked those people If they want to live under "communism". The decsion was made and when there were not enough locals to implement it, they were sent in by Moscow... read on Rokossowski... Gomułka ? Dude forgot about a lot of his "reforms" once red army columns started moving in direction of Warsaw. Kania refused to "sort things out" ? Yes and he lost a position of no.1 commie shortly after that.

Sure commies in Poland had some autonomy, therefore I don't buy stuff such as "Jaruzelski had no choice", however strategical issues such as membership in Warsaw Pact, red ideology etc. were undisputed.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
5 Feb 2012 #187
Fight back and you're a terrorist do nothing and you give legitimacy to the state, so says the law?

I only look at it from the point of view that I'd rather have iron-fisted Russians running Chechyna than a bunch of dodgy Islamists who would quickly turn the state into...well, it isn't worth thinking about.

Are you saying that the Polish army elite knew all the time that the Soviets were responsible for the crime, but went along with the lie that the Nazis did it for political reasons?

I thought that was the accepted version of things?

Well, then you have quite unusual views on these matters...

If "unusual" is "doing what's best for yourself and your family" - then...

Sure commies in Poland had some autonomy, therefore I don't buy stuff such as "Jaruzelski had no choice", however strategical issues such as membership in Warsaw Pact, red ideology etc. were undisputed.

That's why I say it wasn't a puppet state, but rather a tinpot regime.

With Jaruzelski, it's my personal view that he may not have trusted the Soviets at all - he was installed as their man (arguably, ever since 1945, he was Moscow's man - his rapid career rise despite his dubious background confirms this) as First Secretary - and from what we know, it may be that he felt that he had to introduce martial law. We simply don't know what was going on inside his head at that point. Civil war was becoming a possibility (remember - plenty of people owed their position to the PRL) - and given the Soviet history (including endless lies about intentions) - he may have felt that martial law was a way of keeping them out of Poland.

It's a great shame that the Moscow archives won't be opened - we could learn so much about what was going on then.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
6 Feb 2012 #188
Summary
Apart from some obscure definition of the international law which is not worth the paper it has been written on we can agree that the communist years was a Soviet occupation.
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #189
Oh dear, yet again you've been reduced to simply ignoring all the facts which have been posted in this thread which inconveniently prove that your position is at best erroneous and at worst nothing more than a tissue of lies. How very unsurprising.

To sum up: no Poland was not occupied by the USSR and that fact was recognised by every country in the world.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
6 Feb 2012 #190
Apart from some obscure definition of the international law which is not worth the paper it has been written on we can agree that the communist years was a Soviet occupation.

But we can't - because the historical facts suggest otherwise. If it was an occupation, why was the PRL recognised as the legitimate Polish state?
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #191
If it was an occupation, why was the PRL recognised as the legitimate Polish state?

Was it because of a zionist plot?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
6 Feb 2012 #192
Almost certainly. Those damned Jewish-Russians!

Interestingly, the USA recognised the "new" Polish state as early as 6th July 1945.

Also interestingly - if we want to talk about legitimacy - the 1935 Constitution of Poland was in violation of the 1921 one, while the 1944 July Manifesto, the 1947 Small Constitution and the 1952 PRL Constitution were lawful in respect to the previous one.

And people still want to talk about legitimacy?
milky 13 | 1,657
6 Feb 2012 #193
Whether it's Roman with Stoicism/Christianity; Or Napoleonic code; Russia with Stalinist/communism;Brits with humanism; USA spreading love,peace and justice. The bottom line is occupation.

It's too obvious to occupy as an invader, always better to have some 'ism' that gives you an air altruism. -We are doing this because we love you-think of the greater good(social realism) etc etc.

Poland was occupied plain and simple, just like the north of Ireland is occupied by 'Brits' not prods.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
6 Feb 2012 #194
To sum up: no Poland was not occupied by the USSR and that fact was recognised by every country in the world.

BS

So you think the US and Western Europe didn't think Moscow was controlling Poland?

Have you read the book "I saw Poland betrayed"?

Poland was occupied by Communism which it would not have had if wasn't for Moscow.

So you're saying Poland could have done things that Moscow did not like? Like having American troops on Polish soil?

So you think John Paul II thought Poland was not being controlled by Moscow?
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #195
Poland was occupied plain and simple, just like the north of Ireland is occupied by 'Brits' not prods.

Funny how the number of states in the world which recognise the Six Counties as being occupied by the British is exactly same as the number of states in the world which recognised Poland as being occupied by the USSR.

So you think the US and Western Europe didn't think Moscow was controlling Poland?

The discussion is about occupation, not control.

Although one does have to come back to the Jewish question: if Warsaw only did what Moscow told them to, how come Poland's Jews were thrown out while the USSR's Jews were forced to stay where they were?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,454
6 Feb 2012 #196
Poland was occupied by Communism which it would not have had if wasn't for Moscow.

That's a bit of a bold statement, especially considering that the pre-war authorities had suppressed support for Communism through some highly dubious means, and that the whole idea did enjoy quite a bit of support in Europe.

It's quite possible that even without the USSR actually playing a role, Poland would have gone Communist after WW2.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
6 Feb 2012 #197
The discussion is about occupation, not control.

So you do agree Poland was controlled by Moscow?

Although one does have to come back to the Jewish question: if Warsaw only did what Moscow told them to, how come Poland's Jews were thrown out while the USSR's Jews were forced to stay where they were?

I already told you.

Most of Russia's Jews from 300 years ago were already either thrown out of Russia (2/3 of them) or they were put in obscure places of the vast USSR territory (other 1/3 of Jews) where Moscow felt they weren't a threat to heart of Russian culture near Moscow.

Also Poland did not throw out all of its Jews after 1945. On the contrary, they were still in Poland and even in the Polish government.

As per the Pale Settlement, Russia saw the Russia-Poland border area as a place to push Russia's Jews to also.

Also how do you know exactly what orders Moscow gave Poland about Jews?

That's a bit of a bold statement, especially considering that the pre-war authorities had suppressed support for Communism through some highly dubious means, and that the whole idea did enjoy quite a bit of support in Europe.

Only if you're a Soviet propagandist like you do you view it as a "bold" statement. Everyone thought after WWII that there would be free democratic elections in Poland. But Moscow never allowed it.

Do you think Pope John Paul II thought Poland had free elections under Moscow rule?

It's quite possible that even without the USSR actually playing a role, Poland would have gone Communist after WW2.

Yes and its also possible that I'm Santa Claus.
milky 13 | 1,657
6 Feb 2012 #198
Funny how the number of states in the world which recognise the Six Counties as being occupied by the British is exactly same as the number of states in the world which recognised Poland as being occupied by the USSR.

No idea what this means,can you explain?
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
6 Feb 2012 #199
the north of Ireland is occupied by 'Brits' not prods.

Sinn Fein standing in free and fair elections doesn't fit any known definition of occupation.

It's quite possible that even without the USSR actually playing a role, Poland would have gone Communist after WW2.

There were certainly always plenty of Polish socialists, then and now.
peterweg 37 | 2,319
6 Feb 2012 #200
So you think the US and Western Europe didn't think Moscow was controlling Poland?

No, he and delphiandomine like to wind people up by being contrarian.
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #201
So you do agree Poland was controlled by Moscow?

Start a thread about that if you care so much. This thread is about Poland not being occupied by the USSR.

Most of Russia's Jews from 300 years ago were already either thrown out of Russia (2/3 of them) or they were put in obscure places of the vast USSR territory (other 1/3 of Jews) where Moscow felt they weren't a threat to heart of Russian culture near Moscow.

Sadly for you we are talking about the USSR and I've already presented data which confirms that the USSR did not throw its Jews out. Do feel more than welcome to keep banging on about Russia and what happened centuries before the Polish 'anti-zionist' campaign.

Also Poland did not throw out all of its Jews after 1945. On the contrary, they were still in Poland and even in the Polish government.

Are you entirely unaware of the events of 1968 or are you simply forgetting them because they are inconvenient?
Wroclaw 44 | 5,384
6 Feb 2012 #202
This thread is about Poland not being occupied by the USSR.

no it isn't.
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #203
Isn't the topic "Would you classify the Communist years as a "Soviet occupation" ?"
modafinil - | 418
6 Feb 2012 #204
Poland's military might was controlled by the Soviets. Plain and simple: it was a Soviet occupation. There's nothing to argue about.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
6 Feb 2012 #205
how come Poland's Jews were thrown out while the USSR's Jews were forced to stay where they were?

maybe because Stalin dealt with their Jews earlier ?

why was the PRL recognised as the legitimate Polish state?

politics, or rather diplomacy what it has to do with anything ?

because the historical facts suggest otherwise.

What facts ?

Poland was occupied plain and simple, just like the north of Ireland is occupied by 'Brits' not prods.

was occupied until recently
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #206
Poland's military might was controlled by the Soviets.

Debatable.

Plain and simple: it was a Soviet occupation.

How many nations in the world recognised it as a Soviet occupation? None.

There's nothing to argue about.

Precisely: it was not an occupation and that is reflected by the fact that every single government in the world recognised the government in Warsaw as the lawful and legitimate government of Poland.
ShawnH 8 | 1,507
6 Feb 2012 #207
Precisely: it was not an occupation and that is reflected by the fact that every single government in the world recognised the government in Warsaw as the lawful and legitimate government of Poland.

Quite a choice those governments all faced, actually: Recognize the non-democratically government, or put the combat boots back on, and go for a march to Moscow.
Harry
6 Feb 2012 #208
maybe because Stalin dealt with their Jews earlier ?

No, the first census of the Soviet Union (1926) showed that there were 2.67 million Jews in the USSR. In 1959, despite the effects of the holocaust and WWII, there were 2.26 million, in 1970 2.15 million.

Recognize the non-democratically government, or put the combat boots back on, and go for a march to Moscow.

Funny how you overlook the third option, i.e. do neither of those things.
Ironside 51 | 11,337
6 Feb 2012 #209
No, the first census of the Soviet Union (1926) showed that there were 2.67 million Jews in the USSR.

Not all Jews but some, like 1968 wasn't about all Jews but some.
modafinil - | 418
6 Feb 2012 #210
Debatable.

Well give us some examples where the People's army were autonomous, as the only time I have heard of them doing anything was in '68 under Soviet orders.

How many nations in the world recognised it as a Soviet occupation? None.

Irrelevant. If a military is controlled by a foreign nation it is occupied territory. Does any nation bother to claim Wales is occupied because the Welsh guard are controlled by Whitehall?


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.