Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The NKVD in Eastern Europe
Options
Comments
-
It's an opinion peace, not statement of fact. So what's your opinion on it?
ps. I'm sure we can find some far more appalling massacres down through the ages. History didn't begin in 1939 ....
I don't think there's any statements of fact on this thread so it fits right in.
And Katyn is without doubt that greatest crime ever in history. I know so because some skinhead Pole with a neo-nazi tattoo told me so over a pint. He also said Poland today is a great place to live, much better than under the evil communists. When I asked why he chose not to live there if that was the case he said because there are no jobs in Poland and the dole over here is brilliant. True story.0 -
Interesting letter in the Irish Times that seems to contradict the pseudo historians on here
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0702/1224319179307.html
PS Katyn was the worst massacre in the history of civilisation and just mentioning it proves that the USSR was worse than nazi Germany. People should stop droning on about Auschwitz and Treblinka and start remembering the real crimes of WW2 ie Katyn where 4,500 innocent "civilians" were shot because Stalin didn't like the look of them.I don't think there's any statements of fact on this thread so it fits right in.
And Katyn is without doubt that greatest crime ever in history. I know so because some skinhead Pole with a neo-nazi tattoo told me so over a pint. He also said Poland today is a great place to live, much better than under the evil communists. When I asked why he chose not to live there if that was the case he said because there are no jobs in Poland and the dole over here is brilliant. True story.
although clearly the gestapo were worse than the NKVD, you are becoming an apologist for stalinist crimes regardless. The scare quotes around civilians, the pint with the "neo-nazi" Pole. And Poland is better than under the communists.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »although clearly the gestapo were worse than the NKVD, you are becoming an apologist for stalinist crimes regardless. The scare quotes around civilians, the pint with the "neo-nazi" Pole. And Poland is better than under the communists.
What crimes am I apolagising for exactly?0 -
What crimes am I apolagising for exactly?
The scare quotes around civilians? Here is, from wiki, the actual death toll.
This official document was approved and signed by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with 21,768 being a lower bound.[1] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, with the rest being Polish intelligentsia arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests."[1]
Care to explain the scare quotes?0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »The scare quotes around civilians? Here is, from wiki, the actual death toll.
This official document was approved and signed by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with 21,768 being a lower bound.[1] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, with the rest being Polish intelligentsia arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests."[1]
Care to explain the scare quotes?
I don't believe the figures are that high so I'd have to see the sources. Also it should be remembered that the vast majority of Polish POWs taken by the USSR were released and many went on to fight for the allies including the USSR in WW2. The ones executed were the ones with known fascist connections often who were guilty of war crimes in the 1917-1920 attack on Soviet Russia or had collaborated with the Nazis during the carving up of Czechslovakia in 1938. The 4,500 officers shot and buried in Katyn were by no means nice people. That's not to say they deserved execution. Katyn was a brutal massacre carried out by a ruthless Soviet bureaucracy and should never have happened. However I am suspicious of the people who constantly harp on about Katyn. In the grand scale of WW2 it is pretty irrelevent. The nazis carried out a Katyn massacre every day in Poland and about 3 or 4 Katyns every day in occupied USSR or Yugoslavia. Usually the people who drone on about Katyn have a right wing ideological agenda who deliberately try to make people think the nazis and the USSR were equal evils.
Yes the USSR carried out war crimes and massacres in WW2 but which of the allies didn't? I'm not attacking the British carpet bobings of German cities btw. Yes they killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians but it was perfectly understandable in the context of WW2.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't believe the figures are that high so I'd have to see the sources. Also it should be remembered that the vast majority of Polish POWs taken by the USSR were released and many went on to fight for the allies including the USSR in WW2. The ones executed were the ones with known fascist connections often who were guilty of war crimes in the 1917-1920 attack on Soviet Russia or had collaborated with the Nazis during the carving up of Czechslovakia in 1938. The 4,500 officers shot and buried in Katyn were by no means nice people. That's not to say there deserved execution. Katyn was a brutal massacre carried out by a ruthless Soviet bureaucracy. However I am suspicious of the people who constantly harp on about Katyn. In the grand scale of WW2 it is pretty irrelevent. The nazis carried out a Katyn massacre every day in Poland and about 3 or 4 Katyns every day in occupied USSR or Yugoslavia. Usually the people who drone on about Katyn have a right wing ideological agenda who deliberately try to make people think the nazis and the USSR were equal evils.
No doubt the latter claim is true. However, it is not the same as saying that the USSR was not an evil, under Stalin at least. That said, the Nazis were far worse.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »No doubt the latter claim is true. However, it is not the same as saying that the USSR was not an evil, under Stalin at least. That said, the Nazis were far worse.
That's for another thread and worth discussing. This thread seems to be about soviet crimes in Poland. Some posters seem to be implying the Soviets had the eaxct same intentions towards the Polish people as the nazis did ie ethnic cleansing and extermination which of course is untrue.0 -
I wouldn't agree with that. If only because the Soviet state spent the 1930s proving just how incapable it was of determining who actually was a fascist/counter-revolutionary/wrecker/whatever. Soviet violence during this period tended to be an extremely blunt instrument and I'd place a massive question mark over any executionsThe ones executed were the ones with known fascist connections often who were guilty of war crimes in the 1917-1920 attack on Soviet Russia or had collaborated with the Nazis during the carving up of Czechslovakia in 1938
And, in truth, it doesn't really matter whether or not the officers were "nice people"; they still shouldn't have been executed in that fashion. Placing these crimes in context is one thing but let's not shade into dismissing them as "irrelevant". That the Nazis were worse shouldn't diminish the fact that Katyn was an unacceptable atrocity0 -
He wasn't the best source, you can easily find better one.
And Katyn is without doubt that greatest crime ever in history. I know so because some skinhead Pole with a neo-nazi tattoo told me so over a pint. He also said Poland today is a great place to live, much better than under the evil communists. When I asked why he chose not to live there if that was the case he said because there are no jobs in Poland and the dole over here is brilliant. True story.
Hard to say "POW's" about Polish troops captured by Red Army because there was no declarations of war from the Soviet Russia. They just entered to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities they said.Also it should be remembered that the vast majority of Polish POWs taken by the USSR were released and many went on to fight for the allies including the USSR in WW2.
Also, who was released? There were officers who were close to Gen. Berling and they were released. Next, those who decided to cooperate with Soviet Russia.
After German aggression on the USSR, Soviets decided to form Polish troops from all the Polish people who were on their national territory not only "POW's". Their way to be regular army was difficult but it is not the place to describe it. So it is hard to say that "vast majority of Polish POWs taken by the USSR were released and many went on to fight for the allies including the USSR in WW2". Unfortunately, vast majority of Polish POW's were dead on that time.
this is something new for me. a source please.The ones executed were the ones with known fascist connections often who were guilty of war crimes in the 1917-1920 attack on Soviet Russia or had collaborated with the Nazis during the carving up of Czechslovakia in 1938.
Katyn Massacre is just most popular name (Katyn Forrest). There were different camps where NKVD did the same. Ie. Kozelsk, Starobelsk, Ostashkov.I don't believe the figures are that high so I'd have to see the sources.0 -
He wasn't the best source, you can easily find better one.
Hard to say "POW's" about Polish troops captured by Red Army because there was no declarations of war from the Soviet Russia. They just entered to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities they said.
Also, who was released? There were officers who were close to Gen. Berling and they were released. Next, those who decided to cooperate with Soviet Russia.
After German aggression on the USSR, Soviets decided to form Polish troops from all the Polish people who were on their national territory not only "POW's". Their way to be regular army was difficult but it is not the place to describe it. So it is hard to say that "vast majority of Polish POWs taken by the USSR were released and many went on to fight for the allies including the USSR in WW2". Unfortunately, vast majority of Polish POW's were dead on that time.
this is something new for me. a source please.
Katyn Massacre is just most popular name (Katyn Forrest). There were different camps where NKVD did the same. Ie. Kozelsk, Starobelsk, Ostashkov.
The Polish state had effectively collapsed by the time the Red Army re-captured the land stolen by the Poles in 1920. Who was there to declare war on?
It wasn't just the officers and solders loyal to Berling who were released by the Soviets. The Polish troops who promised not to side with the Germans or fight against the USSR were released in 1941 and left the Soviet Union via Iran to join up with the British. This is what became the 2nd Polish Corps and famously fought at Monte Casino.
You can google Poland's shameful full in intimidating Czechslovakia in 1938 and even seizing part of Czechslovakia for themselves. Many of the Polish officers executed at Katyn had participated in intimidating Czechslovakia. It should also be pointed out that no ordinary soldiers were executed by the Soviets, only officers.0 -
Advertisement
-
You can google Poland's shameful full in intimidating Czechslovakia in 1938 and even seizing part of Czechslovakia for themselves. Many of the Polish officers executed at Katyn had participated in intimidating Czechslovakia. It should also be pointed out that no ordinary soldiers were executed by the Soviets, only officers.
Poland's intimidation of Czechslovakia is small beans compared to the Soviet-Axis alliance invading them. You seem to be, once again, disputing this:
This official document was approved and signed by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with 21,768 being a lower bound.[1] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, with the rest being Polish intelligentsia arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests."[1]
Hardly unlikely, I think, that a communist invader wouldn't kill landowners and priests.
On your general claim that the Gestapo were worse, we are agreed. You are becoming an apologists for Stalin's crimes - a form of proxy imperialistic nationalism.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »Poland's intimidation of Czechslovakia is small beans compared to the Soviet-Axis alliance invading them. You seem to be, once again, disputing this:
This official document was approved and signed by the Soviet Politburo, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, with 21,768 being a lower bound.[1] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, with the rest being Polish intelligentsia arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests."[1]
Hardly unlikely, I think, that a communist invader wouldn't kill landowners and priests.
On your general claim that the Gestapo were worse, we are agreed. You are becoming an apologists for Stalin's crimes - a form of proxy imperialistic nationalism.
Are you saying the USSR should just have let the nazis occupy all of Poland? The USSR were correct to advance to the river Bug and create a buffer zone between themselves and the nazis. The alternative was letting the Germans advance to the Soviet border. If that had happened then Moscow and Leningrad may well have fallen in 1941. Is that what you wanted to happen? Also that land in the east of Poland was not historically Polish territory. It was seized by the Poles in their attack on Soviet Russia in 1917-1920. The area was populated by large numbers of by Belorussians who were treated very badly by the Polsih dictatorship. The area in question today is not part of Poland but Belarus and the Ukraine.
People who say the Soviets were wrong to advance to the Bug River should tell us what the alternative was.0 -
I am saying neither of them should have occupied Poland. Regardless of what Poland had taken before - and I am dubious about the whole Polish imperialist nonsense, seeing as they are the victims of the two expanding states on the West and East. It was in control of it then. The Bug river is just a few miles from Warsaw.
You sound like an extreme Russian Nationalist. Many Stalinists do - and you are definitely a Stalinist, there are, and were then, Marxists who opposed the Soviet Union.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »I am saying neither of them should have occupied Poland. Regardless of what Poland had taken before - and I am dubious about the whole Polish imperialist nonsense, seeing as they are the victims of the two expanding states on the West and East. It was in control of it then. The Bug river is just a few miles from Warsaw.
You sound like an extreme Russian Nationalist. Many Stalinists do - and you are definitely a Stalinist, there are, and were then, Marxists who opposed the Soviet Union.
The nazis were going to invade Poland no matter what. You are criticising the USSR for not allowing the nazis to occupy all of Poland. I am not a Russian nationalist, far from it. However the Soviet advance to the Brest Fortress made complete military sense and possibly stopped the Germans winning the war. The fighting at the Brest Fortress alone probably slowed the Germans down by 2 days and sucked in 2 divisions of their best troops.
Here is a quote from Churchill in October 1939 regarding the Soviet re-capture of western Belarussia and Ukraine and the Red Army taking up positions along the Bug.
"That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and to accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic States and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop."
Was churchill a Stalinist and Russian nationalist too?0 -
Arguable. Either way, in reality they did so with the agreement and assistance of the USSR; a secret accord signed long before the "effectively collapse" of the Polish state. There is no question that the Soviet invasion of Poland was an aggressive act of territorial aggrandisement that infringed, to put it mildly, on Polish sovereigntyThe nazis were going to invade Poland no matter what
Incidentally, regardless of the irredentist claims of the USSR, that land was indisputably Polish under international law. Its annexation by Moscow was, alongside similar acts in the Baltics and Romania, part of an imperialist programme to extend the borders of the USSR to those of the old Tsrarist Empire. (The Curzon Line being approximately the division between Russia and Poland within the Empire.) There was no legal case for its seizure
Those border lands also the majority of the standing Red Army annihilated in a matter of weeks. It turns out that abandoning pre-existing defensive fortifications (the Stalin Line) and then deploying along the border in poorly prepared new positions (Molotov Line) does not make "complete military sense"However the Soviet advance to the Brest Fortress made complete military sense and possibly stopped the Germans winning the war. The fighting at the Brest Fortress alone probably slowed the Germans down by 2 days and sucked in 2 divisions of their best troops
Had the Soviets followed their original defensive plans, ie no getting wiped out in Poland, then it's unlikely that the Germans would ever have reached Moscow. Really, it's always struck me as strange when people hold up Poland as the key to Soviet military success in the light of the Red Army's historic performance in Poland
No, he was an imperialist who shared the Stalinist disdain for the rights of small nations. He was happy to sit down with Stalin after the war and carve up Eastern EuropeWas churchill a Stalinist and Russian nationalist too?
So you would advocate the execution of Soviet officers who were involved in intimidating and seizing land in Poland, Finland, the Baltics and Romania?You can google Poland's shameful full in intimidating Czechslovakia in 1938 and even seizing part of Czechslovakia for themselves. Many of the Polish officers executed at Katyn had participated in intimidating Czechslovakia. It should also be pointed out that no ordinary soldiers were executed by the Soviets, only officers.
But then no one has ever pretended that Poland was a particularly nice regime. Beck's government was regarded with distaste and distrust by all parties. The idea that you can simply invade and annex a country's territory because you don't like its government... well that's imperialist nonsense.0 -
I don't think it is arguable. After the British and French sellout at Munich the Germans were always going to continue their expansion eastwards. It was only after Munich that the Soviets tried to sign their own agreement with the nazis. Up till then they had wanted an international anti-fascist alliance.0
-
And it was Stalin selling out, in signing the NAP, that made an invasion of Poland possible. Ironically it was the Soviets that turned eastwards expansion from Nazi desire into horrible realityI don't think it is arguable. After the British and French sellout at Munich the Germans were always going to continue their expansion eastwards. It was only after Munich that the Soviets tried to sign their own agreement with the nazis. Up till then they had wanted an international anti-fascist alliance.
The German generals were prepared to overthrow Hitler over Munich; they were not about to follow him blindly into a two front war that they could not possibly win. Historically, in 1939, the German campaign was based on the assumption that a quick neutralisation of the eastern threat (meaning Poland) followed by a turn to France. This was only possible if the USSR was neutral or supportive
If there is no NAP then an invasion of Poland becomes exceptionally risky from a German perspective and places the Nazi leadership itself under question. It would open Germany to a prolonged two front war: the strategic dilemma that Hitler was so desperate to avoid. Its doubtful that he could have carried the military establishment with him on such a risky venture. Even a state of Soviet armed neutrality would have placed a massive question mark over Nazi expansion
Not to mention the economy in the absence of Soviet economic aid. The Nazi economy, already tottering in 1939, would have been unable to sustain historical levels of performance (particularly key in modernising the Wehrmacht before Barbarossa) and quite possibly would have collapsed without the significant quantities of raw materials provided by the USSR under associated commercial agreements
I don't blame Stalin entirely for the breakdown of the Allied-Soviet collective security talks. But there's no question that signing the NAP was a disaster for the Soviets and played a huge role in enabling further Nazi aggression. Which is why it was recognised as such a major diplomatic revolution at the time0 -
anAnd it was Stalin selling out, in signing the NAP, that made an invasion of Poland possible. Ironically it was the Soviets that turned eastwards expansion from Nazi desire into horrible reality
The German generals were prepared to overthrow Hitler over Munich; they were not about to follow him blindly into a two front war that they could not possibly win. Historically, in 1939, the German campaign was based on the assumption that a quick neutralisation of the eastern threat (meaning Poland) followed by a turn to France. This was only possible if the USSR was neutral or supportive
If there is no NAP then an invasion of Poland becomes exceptionally risky from a German perspective and places the Nazi leadership itself under question. It would open Germany to a prolonged two front war: the strategic dilemma that Hitler was so desperate to avoid. Its doubtful that he could have carried the military establishment with him on such a risky venture. Even a state of Soviet armed neutrality would have placed a massive question mark over Nazi expansion
Not to mention the economy in the absence of Soviet economic aid. The Nazi economy, already tottering in 1939, would have been unable to sustain historical levels of performance (particularly key in modernising the Wehrmacht before Barbarossa) and quite possibly would have collapsed without the significant quantities of raw materials provided by the USSR under associated commercial agreements
I don't blame Stalin entirely for the breakdown of the Allied-Soviet collective security talks. But there's no question that signing the NAP was a disaster for the Soviets and played a huge role in enabling further Nazi aggression. Which is why it was recognised as such a major diplomatic revolution at the time
You're assuming history began in 1939. The fact is the British and French never showed any interest in stopping German aggression in the 30s. The British ignored the constant violations of the Versailles treaty as Germany re-armed, they turned a blind eye to the NAZI forces moving into the Rhineland, let the nazis build an airforce and submarine fleet, allowed the Spanish Republic to collapse to the fascists, let the nazis march into Austria and at Munich they granted everything Hitler asked. And then allowed him to seize the rest of Bohemia and Moravia. The fact is the British and french could have stopped the Germans anytime they wanted between 1933-1938. After Munich Stalin and Molotov drew the understandable conclusion that the British and French would do nothing about a nazi offensive east to seize Poland and the wheatfields of the Ukraine. It was after Mucich that the Soviets began trying to do a deal with the nazis that would buy them time to re-arm. You have to understand the USSR was in no position to fight the nazis in 1939 as the defensive war against Finland proved. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave the USSR 2 extra years to re-arm in which time they mass produced the T-34 and KV tanks, the PPhs sub-machine gun, the IL-2 Shturmovik bomber as well as building a new officer corps after the purges. Unfortunately for the USSR, the re-armament wouldn't be fully complete untill 1944 and the USSR were only ready to fight a prolonged war in 1942 at the earliest.0 -
No, I'm assuming that the war began in 1939. And at this point the Soviet Union found itself supporting Nazi Germany. This was not an accident but was a deliberate strategic choice made by the Soviet leadership. Nor was it expected, as late as august 1939 the Allies and Soviets were negotiating an allianceYou're assuming history began in 1939
Had the Soviet leadership made a different choice, and this did not necessarily mean aligning themselves with the Allies, then I contend that the Nazis would have been far less successful than historically. Certainly the Soviets couldn't have done any worse than historically
I'm beginning to agree with Duggys Housemate. This is typical Stalinist apologism: countering every criticism of the Soviets with a 'Well what about those Allies, eh?' It's no different from the antics of some Nazi defenders earlier in the threadThe fact is the British and French never showed any interest in stopping German aggression in the 30s. The British ignored the constant violations of the Versailles treaty as Germany re-armed, they turned a blind eye to the NAZI forces moving into the Rhineland, let the nazis build an airforce and submarine fleet, allowed the Spanish Republic to collapse to the fascists, let the nazis march into Austria and at Munich they granted everything Hitler asked. And then allowed him to seize the rest of Bohemia and Moravia. The fact is the British and french could have stopped the Germans anytime they wanted between 1933-1938. After Munich Stalin and Molotov drew the understandable conclusion that the British and French would do nothing about a nazi offensive east to seize Poland and the wheatfields of the Ukraine. It was after Mucich that the Soviets began trying to do a deal with the nazis that would buy them time to re-arm. You have to understand the USSR was in no position to fight the nazis in 1939 as the defensive war against Finland proved. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave the USSR 2 extra years to re-arm in which time they mass produced the T-34 and KV tanks, the PPhs sub-machine gun, the IL-2 Shturmovik bomber as well as building a new officer corps after the purges. Unfortunately for the USSR, the re-armament wouldn't be fully complete untill 1944 and the USSR were only ready to fight a prolonged war in 1942 at the earliest.
The only worthwhile point in the above wall of text is the matter of time; as if the USSR needed an additional two years to prepare. It ignores the fact that by, wittingly or not, permitting Nazi Germany to overrun first Poland and then France, the USSR in 1941 faced an immensely stronger foe in 1941 than they had in 1939
It also seems a pretty silly argument when you consider that virtually all of the USSR's preparations for war were undone in a matter of weeks in 1941. Almost the entire standing Red Army and industrial base in western Russia were destroyed. So much for buying time by aiding the Nazis0 -
No, I'm assuming that the war began in 1939. And at this point the Soviet Union found itself supporting Nazi Germany. This was not an accident but was a deliberate strategic choice made by the Soviet leadership. Nor was it expected, as late as august 1939 the Allies and Soviets were negotiating an alliance
Had the Soviet leadership made a different choice, and this did not necessarily mean aligning themselves with the Allies, then I contend that the Nazis would have been far less successful than historically. Certainly the Soviets couldn't have done any worse than historically
I'm beginning to agree with Duggys Housemate. This is typical Stalinist apologism: countering every criticism of the Soviets with a 'Well what about those Allies, eh?' It's no different from the antics of some Nazi defenders earlier in the thread
The only worthwhile point in the above wall of text is the matter of time; as if the USSR needed an additional two years to prepare. It ignores the fact that by, wittingly or not, permitting Nazi Germany to overrun first Poland and then France, the USSR in 1941 faced an immensely stronger foe in 1941 than they had in 1939
It also seems a pretty silly argument when you consider that virtually all of the USSR's preparations for war were undone in a matter of weeks in 1941. Almost the entire standing Red Army and industrial base in western Russia were destroyed. So much for buying time by aiding the Nazis
The British, The French and the USSR all played their cards very badly in the 1930s. However at the time it looked like Stalin had done a great piece of foreign policy. Firstly you are wrong to say the USSR and the nazis entered an alliance. It was a non-aggression pact. The fact that Molotov was a much better negotiater than Chamberlain isn't the fault of the Soviets.
The logic behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was that it would mean the allies would fight the Germans to a stalemate just like in 1914-1918 and both sides would be weakened, the USSR would re-arm and then attack a weakened Germany in 1942 and defeat them. You can claim there was a secret plan by the nazis and Soviets to rule the world together but that simply isn't true. Recently de-classified documents show that Zhukov was ordered to make provisional plans for a strike against the German in 1940 when the German forces were expected to be tied down by the French (believed to be the best army in the world at the time)0 -
Advertisement
-
And at no point did I claim that there was a Nazi-Soviet alliance. It was however much more than a simple non-aggression pact. As part of the NAP both powers carved Eastern Europe into respective sphere and, under the following commercial agreements, the USSR provided very significant economic aid in the form of vast quantities of raw materials. This greatly eased the Nazis' economic struggles during these yearsThe British, The French and the USSR all played their cards very badly in the 1930s. However at the time it looked like Stalin had done a great piece of foreign policy. Firstly you are wrong to say the USSR and the nazis entered an alliance. It was a non-aggression pact. The fact that Molotov was a much better negotiater than Chamberlain isn't the fault of the Soviets
So it wasn't a play for time but instead a cunning plan to set other powers against each other? Risky, horribly mistaken but certainly not altruistic: had Stalin been motivated by anti-fascism then he would have worked to stop Hitler in 1939 (even if by, you know, not jumping into bed with the Nazis). The only possible reason to hold off was the hope that Frances and Britain would be sufficiently weakened that the Soviet Union could also make real gains against bothThe logic behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was that it would mean the allies would fight the Germans to a stalemate just like in 1914-1918 and both sides would be weakened, the USSR would re-arm and then attack a weakened Germany in 1942 and defeat them
Ugh. wrong on both counts. One, you've constructed a strawman; at no point have I claimed that there was a "a secret plan by the nazis and Soviets to rule the world together". That's just a lieYou can claim there was a secret plan by the nazis and Soviets to rule the world together but that simply isn't true. Recently de-classified documents show that Zhukov was ordered to make provisional plans for a strike against the German in 1940 when the German forces were expected to be tied down by the French (believed to be the best army in the world at the time)
Secondly, Soviet plans for crossing the border were always part of preparations for a defence of the USSR; that is, moving against German formations in Poland as a limited spoiling attack. There was no grand plan to "strike against the Germans" in any real offensive. Ironically, in practice Stalin was so convinced that the Germans would not attack that he forbid the Red Army to respond to Nazi provocations or to bring themselves to combat readiness before the invasion0 -
And at no point did I claim that there was a Nazi-Soviet alliance. It was however much more than a simple non-aggression pact. As part of the NAP both powers carved Eastern Europe into respective sphere and, under the following commercial agreements, the USSR provided very significant economic aid in the form of vast quantities of raw materials. This greatly eased the Nazis' economic struggles during these years
So it wasn't a play for time but instead a cunning plan to set other powers against each other? Risky, horribly mistaken but certainly not altruistic: had Stalin been motivated by anti-fascism then he would have worked to stop Hitler in 1939 (even if by, you know, not jumping into bed with the Nazis). The only possible reason to hold off was the hope that Frances and Britain would be sufficiently weakened that the Soviet Union could also make real gains against both
Ugh. wrong on both counts. One, you've constructed a strawman; at no point have I claimed that there was a "a secret plan by the nazis and Soviets to rule the world together". That's just a lie
Secondly, Soviet plans for crossing the border were always part of preparations for a defence of the USSR; that is, moving against German formations in Poland as a limited spoiling attack. There was no grand plan to "strike against the Germans" in any real offensive. Ironically, in practice Stalin was so convinced that the Germans would not attack that he forbid the Red Army to respond to Nazi provocations or to bring themselves to combat readiness before the invasion
I'm certainly not claiming any of Stalin's foreign policy was altruistic! But surely you can see the logic of allowing the Germans to grind themselves down in France while the USSR would re-arm and expand their forces and then attack Germany in the rear? Perhaps the Molotov-Ribbentrop PAct was a big mistake by the Soviets but once again what was the alternative? The British under Chamberlain showed no appetite to confront Hitler. In fact many tories openly supported Hitler and Mussolini until 1938. At least the Soviets were prepared to fight the nazis in the Spanish Civil War. Litvinov also proposed an alliance between the Czechs, French, British and Soviets to fight the Germans over the Sudetenland but it was shot down by the proto-fascists in the Tory Party and the Polish military dictatorship. The Poles sowed the seds of their own downfall by siding with the Germans at Munich, all so they could seize a chunk of Czech territory.
I honestly don't believe the Soviets wanted the NAP with the Germans but rather they felt forced into it in a desperate play for time. Obviously the fact the French army fell apart in a week and the pathetic little British force went running for the ports in 1940 made the NAP look foolish. However the terms of it still meant that the Soviets had achieved much more advantageous borders in areas like the Bug River, Bessarabia and Karelia (the wisdom of Soviet troop deployment was another matter)0 -
From the perspective of expanding Moscow's influence/territory in Europe, yes. In terms of defeating fascism and destroying the immediate Nazi threat to the Soviet Union, absolutely not. The easiest way to fight Nazism in 1939 was not to aid it and enable its conquest of EuropeI'm certainly not claiming any of Stalin's foreign policy was altruistic! But surely you can see the logic of allowing the Germans to grind themselves down in France while the USSR would re-arm and expand their forces and then attack Germany in the rear?
Whatever the logic behind the NAP, it was a catastrophic misjudgement. There were alternatives (see below) and the failure/choice not to explore them had dire consequences for the USSR
There were two alternatives: do nothing or side with the Allies. Both were viable options in the summer of 1939. Either of them would likely have prevented a Nazi invasion of Poland. Either would have been better than the choice historically made. Neither would have involved aiding and abetted Nazi conquests by providing security in the East and critical economic aid. Neither would have included invading and annexing sovereign states in a campaign of territorial aggrandisementPerhaps the Molotov-Ribbentrop PAct was a big mistake by the Soviets but once again what was the alternative?0 -
On 17 September Polish government was in session in Kołomyja (later in Kuty). The Prime minister Felicjan Sławoj-Składkowski decided that Polish state is helpless in the face of two very strong enemies and Commander-in-Chef Edward Rydz-Śmigły gave an order to evacuate authorities and army to Romania.The Polish state had effectively collapsed by the time the Red Army re-captured the land stolen by the Poles in 1920.
The land which you call "stolen" had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth till the partitions of the Commonwealth. Then of course it was Russian land.
17 September at 2 a.m. Polish ambassador in Moscow got the letter talking that: in the face of bankruptcy of Polish state etc etc. So could they find anybody to give a note but not declarations of war?Who was there to declare war on?
From September 1939 Soviet political police was looking for enemies of the state and in 1941 there were a lot of Polish people in soviets camps. They were also released to be part of Anders Army.It wasn't just the officers and solders loyal to Berling who were released by the Soviets. The Polish troops who promised not to side with the Germans or fight against the USSR were released in 1941 and left the Soviet Union via Iran to join up with the British. This is what became the 2nd Polish Corps and famously fought at Monte Casino.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZaolzieYou can google Poland's shameful full in intimidating Czechslovakia in 1938 and even seizing part of Czechslovakia for themselves. Many of the Polish officers executed at Katyn had participated in intimidating Czechslovakia.
What do you mean ordinary soldier? What if the soldier's mother was i.e. a teacher and father a policeman? What if that soldier before the war was in police academy? Was that private only ordinary or enemy of state?It should also be pointed out that no ordinary soldiers were executed by the Soviets, only officers.
Do you know how Soviets were checking who were you? Very simple and very common way?0 -
To put some numbers on that: According to Wheatcroft, referenced above, from 1939-41 the Soviet state arrested 410-600k Poles from the newly occupied territories (in addition to another 0.5-1m non-Polish victims). Of these we know that approx 22k were deliberately executed on the Politburo's orders with approx 150k released following the German invasion. That still leaves around 180-300k Poles unaccounted for in the records; it is quite likely that most of these died while in the labour colony networkFrom September 1939 Soviet political police was looking for enemies of the state and in 1941 there were a lot of Polish people in soviets camps. They were also released to be part of Anders Army0 -
To put some numbers on that: According to Wheatcroft, referenced above, from 1939-41 the Soviet state arrested 410-600k Poles from the newly occupied territories (in addition to another 0.5-1m non-Polish victims). Of these we know that approx 22k were deliberately executed on the Politburo's orders with approx 150k released following the German invasion. That still leaves around 180-300k Poles unaccounted for in the records; it is quite likely that most of these died while in the labour colony network
Who in the hell is Wheatcroft? And just because he can't do basic maths it doesn't mean 300,000 Poles died in labour camps. Right wing "historians" are constantly creating fictional people and then claiming they were murdered in gulags.0 -
All the time Polish historians are not sure about the numbers and they estimate it from over 300 k to even 600k. Full NKVD archives are unattainable for historians what make their researches difficult.
Why numbers are different?
NKVD registered people transported by train only. Later in different ways their families were added to them and in all probability they were not registered.
Many people died during their way to USSR. NKVD numbers are 0,7%, Polish 10 %. Deportees called those transports " white crematories" because people were freezing to death.0 -
Referenced in post #6: "Wheatcroft's The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings"
But I do love how you automatically dismiss any contrary source as a "right wing 'historian'". In reality, Wheatcroft is one of the foremost experts on using archival evidence to detail Soviet repression measures. From from "inventing people" he has clashed repeatedly with the likes of Conquest who propose sky-high estimates. In fact, he spends a great deal of that very paper rubbishing Conquest's figures and arguing for lower figures, rooted in archival documentation. Yet because he dares suggest that hundreds of thousands of Poles were arrested and deported, you dismiss him out of hand. Way to disprove that apologist tag
As for the "basic maths", there is no question that at least 410k Poles were arrested following the occupation of eastern Poland. We know this because Beria himself informed Stalin in August 1941 that "389,382 former Polish citizens were in captivity in the USSR; these included 120,962 in prisons, camps and places of exile; 243,106 in settlements for special exiles and 25,314 in prisoner of war camps". Then throw in the 22k that the Politburo resolved to execute earlier
This is a minimum figure, the upper ranges proposed are, as mentioned 600k arrested and deported. If the latter figure is correct then by 1941 there are already 200k Polish citizens who have already disappeared from the the records
Of the 389k, "119,855 were evacuated to Iran with General Anders' army... 36 510 were transferred to the Polish Army which fought with the Red Army on the Eastern Front and 11,516 are reported to have died in 1941-43". That still leaves appox 220k Poles who are supposed to have been amnestied but remain unaccounted for in the archives by 1943. Obviously more if you accept the higher ranges. Does this mean that they all died? No. But it leads Wheatcroft, who is not prone to exaggeration, to note that "it is highly likely that many more Poles died in this early period"0 -
Referenced in post #6: "Wheatcroft's The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings"
But I do love how you automatically dismiss any contrary source as a "right wing 'historian'". In reality, Wheatcroft is one of the foremost experts on using archival evidence to detail Soviet repression measures. From from "inventing people" he has clashed repeatedly with the likes of Conquest who propose sky-high estimates. In fact, he spends a great deal of that very paper rubbishing Conquest's figures and arguing for lower figures, rooted in archival documentation. Yet because he dares suggest that hundreds of thousands of Poles were arrested and deported, you dismiss him out of hand. Way to disprove that apologist tag
As for the "basic maths", there is no question that at least 410k Poles were arrested following the occupation of eastern Poland. We know this because Beria himself informed Stalin in August 1941 that "389,382 former Polish citizens were in captivity in the USSR; these included 120,962 in prisons, camps and places of exile; 243,106 in settlements for special exiles and 25,314 in prisoner of war camps". Then throw in the 22k that the Politburo resolved to execute earlier
This is a minimum figure, the upper ranges proposed are, as mentioned 600k arrested and deported. If the latter figure is correct then by 1941 there are already 200k Polish citizens who have already disappeared from the the records
Of the 389k, "119,855 were evacuated to Iran with General Anders' army... 36 510 were transferred to the Polish Army which fought with the Red Army on the Eastern Front and 11,516 are reported to have died in 1941-43". That still leaves appox 220k Poles who are supposed to have been amnestied but remain unaccounted for in the archives by 1943. Obviously more if you accept the higher ranges. Does this mean that they all died? No. But it leads Wheatcroft, who is not prone to exaggeration, to note that "it is highly likely that many more Poles died in this early period"
I'd have to read it myself before commenting.0 -
Advertisement
-
The nazis were going to invade Poland no matter what. You are criticising the USSR for not allowing the nazis to occupy all of Poland. I am not a Russian nationalist, far from it. However the Soviet advance to the Brest Fortress made complete military sense and possibly stopped the Germans winning the war. The fighting at the Brest Fortress alone probably slowed the Germans down by 2 days and sucked in 2 divisions of their best troops.
If the only Soviet aim was defensive i.e. to establish a buffer, why didn't they simply arm and reinforce Polish troops? (North Korea?)
That would have brought the Germans to a full halt and tied them up completely in the East & left them fully exposed to Allied forces in the West.
Didn't Hitler received a telegram of Congratulations after the Fall of France, from the Soviet Union?
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?0
Advertisement