PDA

View Full Version : USSR in alliance with nazi Germany



Lancer44
07-24-2006, 02:20 AM
I decided to split this thread from "Lend Lease" and invite other members to spread a bit of propaganda...


It shoud be kept in mind Lancer, that you are great propaganda spreader.

USSR was not ally of Japan, it honored the non-aggression pact with Japan during the war.
USSR was not ally of Germany as well, it honored the non-aggression pact with Germany until Germany broke it 22 June 41.

The minor fact that Japanese could register their supply ships as soviet and freely supply their Manchurian Kwantung army is just a little disloyalty to USA and Allies. I agree that this is not worth mentioning. lol

But I want now to spread some great propaganda about USSR being the best ally of Germany between end of August 1939 and June 1941.
And do not start wriggling in your chair. I will not mention invasion of Poland or Baltic states. Not at all!
You would say that this never happened anyway and RKKA entered Poland only to liberate Belarussians and Ukrainians. Am I right?
And liberate Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians from opressive Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. Am I right again?

On the 3rd of July 1940 a strange vessel left a German port Gotenhaven (Gdynia). From a first glance it was an ordinary cargo-passenger ship, but an experienced seaman would have noticed for sure unusually large crates and covered by tarpaulins numerous installations on its deck and something similar to gun port lids in the upper part of her hull. The ship soon headed northwards and, having passed by the Scandinavian Peninsula, entered the Soviet territorial waters. She refueled in the Bay of Western Litsa – a base courteously rented out by the USSR to the Nazi Germany. Then without any problems she crossed the free of ice Barents Sea and soon entered the Straight of Matochkin Shar dividing the Southern and the Northern islands of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Soon the ship approached a tiny settlement on the Straight coast whereby several ships were anchored. The ship slowed her speed and downed a motorboat. When the boat had returned, tall people in fur-lined leather coats and felt jackboots ascended the deck of the mysterious ship. They were Soviet sea pilots – captain of far navigation D.N. Sergievsjyi and his colleague A.G. Karelskikh. Having received from the captain of the mysterious ship information on its immersion, maneuverability, types of guide screws and hull strengthening, they took her under their conduct and led into the Kara Sea…
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6496/komet1wb1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
A modest cargo-passenger ship "Ems"
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8321/komet2be9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
"Komet" is ready for action. Open gun port lids are seen in the upper part of the port side


The Soviet pilots led a German raider "Komet". Initially it was indeed a cargo ship built in 1936 and named "Ems". In the beginning of the WWII the Kriegsmarine command again decided, as well as during the WWI, to use raiders disguised as cargo ships for strikes on transport routes of its then main enemy – Great Britain. A whole series of ships disguised as merchantmen of different countries were re-equipped into auxiliary cruisers. Thus the "Komet" raider with a displacement of 7500 t, armed with six 5.9-inch guns, six AA guns and six torpedo tubes joined the ranks. Besides, "Komet" carried two hydroplanes, a torpedo boat and 270 mines. The crew consisted of 270 men. Food and equipment stores, availability of seawater fresheners might have let the ship to be in an autonomous navigation for at least a year.
Various equipment might have allowed the ship to operate in all possible environments. Amongst it there were a sledge, fur clothes, tropical uniform, mosquito nets and even toys for inhabitants of remote Pacific islands.
An experienced sailor, hydrograph and polar explorer kapitan zur see Robert Eyssen was assigned to be the ship’s captain. It was he who had suggested the Krigsmarine command to use the Northern Sea Route for the quickest and safe pass into the Pacific. A request of the German Naval attaché in Moscow had been coordinated with Stalin. He approved a 970,000 DM commercial deal and ordered the chief of Glavsevmorput (Northern Sea Route Department) I.D. Papanin to include conduct of a German vessel into the navigation plan of year 1940. Actually, then Stalin considered Great Britain as his main enemy, the Soviet newspapers were full of anti-British articles, and, thus, the deal was in a full match with the foreign policy of the USSR.
Having passed though the Straight of Matochkin Shar, "Komet" entered the Kara Sea. Its waters were free of ice and the ship moved to 650 of the Eastern longitude. Here Eyssen stopped and asked the "Stalin" icebreaker for a conduct through the ice fields. "Stalin" replied that she was far away, but the "Lenin" icebreaker with a caravan was already approaching Dixon, that’s why "Komet" would have to return to Matochkin Shar for safety and wait for a signal on the beginning of a conduct through ice. Eyssen was deeply dissatisfied but willingly or unwillingly he had to return. After comeback to the Straight he decided to give his crew an opportunity to walk on hard ground, to take photographs for memory, collect souvenirs. However, a permission to do it was not obtained immediately but only after a preliminary radio-request made by the Soviet pilots from the board of "Komet".
On the 25th of August the "Lenin" icebreaker approached "Komet", and the German ship followed him. The ships passed through the Straight of Vilkitsky (between the continent and the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago) and a powerful icebreaker "Stalin" met them in the Laptev Sea. As soon as the caravan had approached the edge of thick ice fields, Eyssen was invited to "Stalin". Here the captain of the Soviet icebreaker Belousov asked him about the technical characteristics and condition of "Komet" and after that invited Eyssen and his interpreter for breakfast. During the breakfast served with the traditional Russian hospitality, the Germans had to take part in an active exchange of toasts, although, of course, they had not had a habit to drink a lot at 6 a.m. But the protocol required it. Besides, Eyssen noticed that the pilots Sergievskyi and Karelskikh who had not touched spirits onboard of "Komet" were not following this rule onboard of "Stalin".
Having raised the anchor, "Komet" headed eastwards following the Soviet icebreaker across absolutely clear waters. 25 minutes after the symbolic conduct ended, the Soviet icebreaker hoisted the signal "I wish you a happy voyage!" and headed west. On the 6th of September "Komet" passed through the Bering Straight, in the meantime Eyssen said literally the following: "I’ve done it, I’ll never agree to do it again". A bit later "Komet" anchored in the Anadyr bay. Here captain Eyssen stayed for several hours in order to let the divers to scrutinize the guide screws and the rudder and to fix up something. Then, having disguised as a Soviet steam ship "Dezhnev", "Komet" did an open sea again…
In November 1940, having refilled stores of fuel and food in Japan, "Komet" went further south and began to hunt passenger and cargo ships. She was disguised as a Japanese merchant ship "Manio Maru" and operated together with a raider "Orion" ("Mayebashi Maru") and an auxiliary ship "Kulmerland" ("Tokio Maru"). On the 27th of November in the New Zealnd waters near the Chatham Island they sank their first victim – a small cargo steam ship "Holmwood". On the 27th of November the German raiders sank a large liner "Rangitine" (immersion 16,000 t), heading to Great Britain with several thousand tons of meat and food. The captain of the liner, nevertheless, had managed to broadcast an alarm signal before the German boarding team turned off his radio station. The New Zealand authorities warned all ships about a necessity to avoid the area from which "Rangitine" had sent an alarm signal. On the next day the "Achilles" cruiser and the "Puriri" minesweeper arrived at the place of the "Rangitine"’s disappearance but found only floating debris, an empty boat and oil films on the water. Crews of hydroplanes launched from "Achilles" found nothing either.

Lancer44
07-24-2006, 02:22 AM
On the 6th of December "Komet" and "Orion" sank a passenger-cargo ship "Triona" between the Solomon Islands and Nauru. On the next day "Komet" sank a Norwegian ship "Vinnie". On the 8th of December "Orion" sank a phosphorite-loaded ship "Triadic" in a view of the people of the Nauru Island, then caught up and sank a cargo ship "Triaster". Smoke from the burning "Triadic" attracted attention of the islanders. Besides, a radio station on the island received signals of alarm sent by another victim of "Komet" – the "Komata" ship – and strange radio signals with which radio operators from "Komet" tried to muffle the alarm signals. The Nauru radio station transmitted a radiogram to the RAN headquarters. All ships were given an order to disperse and head to other ports. Nevertheless, no ship replied. Debris from the sunken ships began to get thrown on the Nauru shore…
In the meantime, the RAN could do little to protect the sea routes since there was not a single Australian naval ship in the Pacific. Darwin was the nearest port where there was a naval ship "Manoora" (an auxiliary cruiser), but it was in four days of sailing. The RAN headquarters had other problems too – on the 5th of December a cargo ship "Nimbin" struck a mine, sowed by a German raider "Penguin", and sunk near the New South Wales coast, two day later the same happened to a British ship "Hartford". Thus, the war had come to the Australian shores. The Australian communists, meanwhile, kept agitating against the "imperialistic" war and army enlistment.
Debates on the adequacy of sea route safety in the Australian waters commenced in the Australian parliament. Information about sunken ships appeared in newspapers and radio programs, the public opinion was stirred up by the alarming news. Due to it the RAN headquarters referred to the British Admiralty with a request to return a certain number of Australian naval ships from the Mediterranean to Australia.

On the 21st of December 1940 "Komet", "Orion" and "Kulmerland" anchored by the Emirau Island north of Kavieng. All imprisoned crewmembers and passengers from sunken ships (about 500 people) excluding a small number of military servicemen were sent ashore. They had been given a small boat in order to enable them to reach a larger island and find help. Later on the released prisoners regarded exclusively highly captain Eyssen who had treated them exemplarily well. It is noteworthy, that the German raiders would open fire at cargo and passenger ships only in case the latter did not obey an order to stop. The ships were sunk only after all crew and passengers had been taken off them.
After a call to Emirau "Kulmerland" headed back to Japan, "Orion" – to the Maug Island in the Martian Archipelago to repair her engine. Captain Eyssen led "Komet" back to Nauru to shell the port installations. Having stopped at the traverse of the island "Komet" hoisted the Krigsmarine flag and sent a radio signal with an order to clear the moors and the oil storage. But since the crowd of bystanders had not dispersed, Eyssen gave a warning salvo which swept the crowd out very quickly. Then a real shelling began and ruined the port. It is noteworthy that a fire destroyed a large stockpile of phosphorite bought by the Japanese, which had precariously provided the German raiders with an opportunity to base in their ports. "Meanwhile "Komet" was heading south…
The crewmembers and passengers from sunken ships, left on Emirau, had somehow found out about the plans to shell Nauru. Those who managed to reach Kavieng sent to the RAN headquarters a warning about the oncoming attack but there were no naval ships to prevent the raid. This had become the last drop, which filled the growl of patience. The cruiser "Sydney" and the auxiliary cruiser "Westralia" were called home from the Mediterranean. In the beginning of January 1941 "Sydney", which performed excellently in engagements with the Italian naval ships, headed to Australia. On the 9th of February cruiser arrived in Sydney where people of the city cheerfully greeted her.
Approximately at the same time, on the 3rd of December 1940, another German raider – "Cormoran" left the port of Danzig (Gdansk). On the second day of navigation the raider disguised herself as a Soviet ship "Viacheslav Molotov" from Leningrad. All deck installations were painted in brown, the pipe – in black with a red strip. A red flag was hoisted on a mast. For some time after that the crewmembers entertained each other using the word "comrade" as a reference and greeting each other with a Red-Front salute – half raised, bent in shoulder right hand and clenched fist. Officers didn’t pay much attention to it justifiably considering it as a sign of high moral… The routes of "Sydney" and "Cormoran" will cross a year after – on the 19th of November 1941. In a short battle near the West Australian coast both ships would be sunk and nobody from the "Sydney" crew would survive.
Anyway, let’s return to "Komet". After the shelling of Nauru captain Eyssen led his raider to the New Zealand shores to hunt on the sea route New Zealand – Panama. Here he reached the southernmost point of his navigation – the crew saw the Antarctic shores. In the end of February 1941 captain Eyssen received an order to move to the SE sector of the Indian Ocean. He knew that the "Sydney" cruiser was based in Fremantle (seaport near Perth) and did his best to stay away from the West Australian coast since he understood that his chance will be nil in an encounter with a first class cruiser. For several months the raider looked for new victims far from common routes of cargo and passenger ships. The luck, seemingly, abandoned "Komet". On the 21st of May "Komet" headed towards the Pacific again according to a new order.
In early August captain Eyssen heard from a radio program, that patrol aircraft of RAAF had driven the German raiders away from their territorial waters, and made an appropriate note in his logbook. An experienced seaman understood well that the Australians were not up to such a task – the continent was too big. However, quite probably the radio program had played its role in his decision to move closer to the New Zealand coast and then to head east towards the South America coast. On the 14th of August "Komet" came across a ship "Australind" near the Galapagos Islands. Her radio operator tried to send a SOS signal, but the ship was shelled and several sailors died (see a page "A Sailor from "Australind"). The survivors were taken off the British ship which was blasted after that. Five days after "Komet" captured a Dutch ship "Kota Napan" and sank a British ship "Devon". The POWs were transferred to the captured Dutch ship and a prize crew led "Devon" into Atlantic and further to Germany (later on a German raider "Atlantis" would unload her POWs on her near the Sierra-Leone coast).
"Komet" moved eastwards desisting of new attacks. Having passed around the Horn Cape, "Komet" entered the Atlantic waters and on the 26th of November 1941 arrived in Cherbourg. The last part of her navigation was the hardest – ‘Komet" was constantly under attack of British torpedo boats and planes. But again the luck was with captain Eyssen – a bomb hit "Komet" but never exploded. On the 30th of November "Komet" arrived in Hamburg. An unprecedented round-the-globe navigation which had lasted for 516 days, ended.
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4792/aroundmapkomet1pr4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1571/aroundtheworldkometvh1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
V.F. Vorobiev. Krugosvetka reidera "Komet". Sbornik Gangut. Vypusk 16 (1998) i 19 (1999)
http://www.argo.net.au/andre/raiderKOMETENFIN.htm

This story is very interesting indeed. Circumnavigation of the World by German auxilliary cruiser … Of course little help from USSR cannot be clasified as being ally. Perhaps other members of the Forum can express their opinion.


Cheers,
Lancer44

Edited once to add source.

Dani
07-24-2006, 04:37 PM
More on Komet:

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/komet.html

Lancer44
07-25-2006, 05:49 AM
French philosopher Paul Ricoeur noted in a recent book certain historic events are "over-remembered" while others are "under-remembered.
On Sept. 30, 1939, the official Soviet newspaper Pravda editorialized that "the German-Soviet friendship is now established forever. ... Both parties hope that England and France will stop their absolutely pointless war against Germany. ... Should England and France fail to do so, Germany and the Soviet Union will take the appropriate steps."

Such sentences in official press of supposedly neutral country are certainly "under-remembered"...
Let's have a look what steps USSR took to cripple England and France or at least at one of these steps.

http://praguepost.com/read_comments.php?ID=41002

Zapadnaya Litsa: Is a fjord, some 16 km deep and 1-2 km wide located approximately 60 km northwest of Murmansk. Four submarine facilities -at Nerpichya, Bolshaya Lopatka, Malaya Lopatka, and Andreeva gubas - are located here. The first three are on the east side of the fjord, the other is on the west. Zapadnaya Litsa is also known as Murmansk-150. The Russian Navy's Typhoon SSBNs are based at the Nerpichya Guba base. This base is some 10 km from the mouth of the fjord. Approximately 2 km to the northeast of Nerpichya is the Bolshaya Lopatka Guba base for general purpose nuclear-powered submarines. Another 1 km to the northeast of Bolshaya Lopatka Guba is the Malaya Lopatka Guba submarine repair facility. This is today. Area is still closed for travellers and only locals and military personel can move relatively freely. From this base pride of the Russian Fleet nuclear submarine Kursk went into first and last cruise.

In 1940 - 66 years ago situation was exactly the same. Hidden here was top secret German base - Basis Nord.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0872499928/102-4896520-8269760?v=glance&n=283155

The Lure of Neptune: German-Soviet Naval Collaboration and Ambitions, 1919 - 1941 (Studies in Maritime History) (Hardcover)
by Tobias R., III Philbin

In this concise study, Tobias Philbin thoroughly dismantles the widely held notion that the period between the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and the German invasion of Russia was merely a convenient breathing space for Stalin to prepare for his coming war against Hitler. In fact during this period the Soviet Union actively cooperated with Hitler's war against the Western Powers. Among Stalin's un-neutral acts: granting the Germans the use of a U-Boat replenishment base near Murmansk (Basis Nord); facilitating the travel of German commerce raiders from the North Sea across north Russia to the Pacific; and cooperating with the German seizure of the American merchant vessel, City of Flint. In fact the Jan Wellem, which the Germans based at Basis Nord to supply their submarines, would participate in the German invasion of Narvik in April 1940 (where the British promptly sunk her). Unfortunately for Stalin, the relationship was largely one-sided, with the Germans continually delaying promised deliveries of coveted naval technology (including plans for the formidible battleship Bismarck). Excellently documented in Soviet and German sources (some of which were captured by the Allies at the end of the war), Philbin throws considerable light on a previously well-hidden aspect of the Second World War.

As you can see the soviets actually allowed Germany her own naval base on soviet soil near Murmansk. It proved to be a valuable base for U-boats operating in the North Sea, and played an important role helping supply Hitler's invasion of Norway. The German liner "Bremen" found refuge there, as did a succession of blockade breaking vessels; and measures violating international law were adopted by the soviet authorities to allow the Germans to escape with a captured American merchant ship, "City of Flint". German auxiliary cruisers were equipped at Murmansk for raids on British shipping.
In this and other ways the Soviet Government lent enormous assistance to the otherwise extremely vulnerable German Navy.

http://www.magweb.com/sample/sconflic/co03wese.htm

"Reports signifying unusual shipping activity continued to be received by the Admiralty. By April 8, nineteen British and Allied submarines were on station off the Norwegian coast; they reported an unusual number of ships moving north under neutral flags, but were unable positively to identify any of the shipping as German troopships. Between April 3 and 7, twenty-two vessels, all the ships comprising the Ausfuhrstaffel and Seetransportstaffel (supply ships for the first wave), had departed from Hamburg and Stettin. On April 3 and 4, two large tankers departed from Wilhelmshaven, and on April 6, a small tanker left Hamburg. Another large tanker, Jan Wellem, departed from the Murmansk area for Narvik on April 6. "

"Our ships were not spotted by the German submarines stationed in the outer fjord, which had been misled by sighting them the previous evening sailing in the opposite direction to fill in time; and the one destroyer on patrol had returned to harbour without replacement ten minutes before the British flotilla made its attack. Five destroyers then lay in the harbour itself, including two which were alongside the tanker Jan Wellem refuelling: the slowing up of this process (between seven and eight hours for each pair of ships) through the non-arrival of a second tanker was in fact the reason why the German flotilla had not already left for home. Two destroyers were at anchor in the Ballangen fjord on the south side of the main fjord, about twelve miles short of Narvik; and the other three lay at a lesser distance along the small Herjangsfjord beyond the town."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/UK-NWE-Norway-4.html

"I seem to recall that German merchant ships at sea at the outbreak of war (including at least one Strength-Through-Joy liner) were often directed to Soviet Arctic ports. They were recovered after the Germans conquered Norway."


"The U-boat supply ship Jan Wellem was stationed in a remote inlet west of Murmansk where U-boats would come to get fuel, torpedo restocks, etc.. The Jan Wellem was part of the 'Export Echelon' that sailed for Norwegian ports before the invasion and was the only German supply ship to reach Narvik intact. It was refueling Bey's destroyer flotilla when the first British naval attack was launched."

The only trace of Jan Wellem full history I could find there:

http://warsailors.com/forum/read.php?1,18723,18749#msg-18749
05.08.1921: Stapellauf
30.10.1921: Indienststellung als "Württemberg" für die HAPAG
13.12.1935: von der Hamburg-Amerikanischen Packetfahrt-Aktien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG) an die Erste Deutsche Walfang GmbH (Heinkel & Cie, GmbH, Düsseldorf) verkauft - Umbau zum Walfang-Mutterschiff "Jan Wellem" umgebaut (bis September 1936).
10.11.1939: Umrüstung zum Stützpunkttanker für die Kriegsmarine.
04.02.1940: Basis Nord - Fischerhalbinsel.
08.04.1940: in Narvik eingelaufen.
13.04.1940: durch britische Zerstörer in Narvik (HMS Icarus, HMS Ivanhoe und HMS Hostile) versenkt.
Juli - August 1940: gehoben, zum größten Teil ausgebrannt.
Februar 1941: zur Reparatur nach Framnaes überführt - Reparatur aber nicht ausgeführt.
September 1942: zur Teilreparatur nach Kiel überführt.
09.04.1943: Heizöldepot, E-Station und Destillierschiff der MAUREB in Libau.
März / April 1945: nach Kiel rücküberführt.
01.04.1946 - 06.06.1946: bei Howaldt, Kiel ausgeschlachtet.
06.06.1946: in der Heikendorfer Bucht auf Position 54°22'12''N, 10°11'33''O selbstversenkt ?
November 1947: in Blyth / Großbritannien nach Ausbau der Maschinen abgewrackt ?

It clearly states that Jan Wellem was stationed in Basis Nord near Murmansk from 4-th of February 1940. Sunk near Narvik by Royal Navy was raised in July-August 1941.

Lancer44
07-25-2006, 05:50 AM
It is also interesting to find proofs that soviets tried to hide if not existence, than real extent of their co-operation with nazis.

Below you can read transcript from Nuremberg Trials which directly points at Basis Nord. Reaction of soviet Colonel Pokrovsky is truly remarkable.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/ftp.py?imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13//tgmwc-13-123.09
Page 191
DR. KRANZBUHLER: With the next document I should like to prove that considerations as to bases had nothing to do with the question of an aggressive war, as far as the U-Boat Commander, Admiral Donitz, was concerned. I am submitting Documents Donitz 3 and Donitz 4. They are on Pages 3 and 5 of the Document Book. Donitz 3 is a war diary of the Commander of U-Boats, of 3rd November, 1939, and I read from the second paragraph, the tenth line from the top: "At the same time Naval Operational Staff reports that there are possibilities for the establishment of a 'Base North' which seem to be very promising. In my opinion the immediate introduction of all possible steps in order to arrive at a clear judgement of the existing possibilities is of the greatest importance." And then there follows a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such a base, which is absolutely identical with the considerations mentioned in Exhibit GB 83. It is a question of Murmansk, in connection with "Base North," as can be seen from Document Donitz 4, and it is known that these considerations were in full accord with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I should like to show that the question of bases continuously comes up in enemy navy without reference to

- THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuhler, you are going a little bit fast over these documents and I am not quite sure that I am quite following what use you are making of them. This base mentioned in the report is Murmansk?

DR. KRANZBUHLER: Yes, Murmansk. And I want to use it as proof, Mr. President, that the question of bases has nothing to do with the question of whether one wants to wage aggressive war with the country in which these bases are situated. The considerations as to Murmansk were taken in full accord with the Soviet Union, and in the same manner Admiral Donitz took the question of Norwegian bases into consideration. That is the subject of my proof.

THE PRESIDENT: But the fact that Murmansk was suggested as a base, to be taken with the consent of the Soviet Union - if it was the case - doesn't have any relevance, does it, to taking a base in Norway without the consent of Norway. DR. KRANZBUHLER: Mr. President, the relevancy seems to me to exist in the fact that Admiral Donitz as Commander of the U- Boats in both cases received merely the order to state his opinion about bases in a certain country, but that in the last analysis, he had as little to say in the case of Narvik and Trondheim as in the case of Murmansk.

COLONEL POKROVSKY (of the Russian Prosecution): In Document No. 3, the one just being referred to by the Defence Counsel for the defendant Donitz, mention is definitely made of the Northern bases, but nothing is said, in this document, of any plans of the Soviet Union. And to discuss, here and now, some plan or other of the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, quite out of order, since there are no plans of the Soviet Union in connection with the Northern bases, and there never have been.

DR. KRANZBUHLER: If the representative of the Soviet Union has any doubts that this base was considered in full accord with the Soviet Union, then I shall prove that by calling a witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the document does not say anything about it.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: The document says nothing about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think you ought to make statements of that sort without any evidence, and at the moment you are dealing with a document which does not contain any evidence of the fact. [Page 192]

DR. KRANZBUHLER: May I perhaps read the Document Donitz No. 4?
THE PRESIDENT: It is Donitz 3, is it not?
DR. KRANZBUHLER: I have now come to Donitz 4. I had read from Donitz 3. I shall now read from Donitz 4, the entries for 17th April, 1939:- "Commander of U-boats receives instructions from Naval Operational Staff to try out Base North. Naval Operational Staff considers the trying out of the base by 'U 36,' due to sail within the next days, highly desirable. Supply goods for tanker Phoenizia, in Murmansk, going with fishing steamer to Murmansk on 22 November." It seems to me that this entry very clearly shows that that could have happened only in accord with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I want to show that considerations as to bases -

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Dr. Kranzbuhler, the Tribunal thinks you ought not to make these observations on these documents which really do not support what you are saying. Document No. 3, for instance, does not bear any such interpretation, because it refers to attacks which it was suggested should be made against ships coming from Russian ports, in paragraph 2. And equally the other document you referred to, Donitz 4, on Page 5, does not bear the interpretation which you are putting upon it.

DR. KRANZBUHLER: Mr. President, I am afraid that the contents of both documents have been presented too quickly by me. For anyone who is familiar with such war diaries, many things are self-evident which otherwise are not so easy to understand. Document Donitz 3 states, in that part which I have read, that possibilities for the establishment of a Base North exist. These possibilities can be only political possibilities, because one can establish a base in a foreign country only if that country agrees. The Document Donitz 4 shows that the base in question is Murmansk, and that this base is being tried out with a supply ship, a fishing steamer, and a U-boat. That convincingly shows in my opinion -

THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): The objection the Tribunal was raising was to the statement by you that the Soviet Union had agreed, and these documents do not bear out any such statement.

DR. KRANZBUHLER: I am of the opinion, that in Document Donitz 4 that can clearly be seen. It is not possible -


COLONEL POKROVSKY: I definitely protest against the fact that apart from what has been stated in the documents, certain unfounded conjectures or assertions have been made with a view to interpreting the documents in the manner in which Dr. Kranzbuhler has endeavoured to interpret them from the initial stages of his defence. I do not belong to the category of fortune tellers and palmists. I cannot conjecture what hypothetical conclusions may be drawn from one or another of the documents. I am a lawyer and I am accustomed to operate with documents such as they appear, and I am accustomed to operate with the contents of a document such as they are expressed. I consider that the Tribunal has quite correctly expressed to the Defence Counsel the absolute impossibility of drawing the conclusions he is attempting to reach, and I would ask that Counsel for the Defence be reminded of his duty to limit himself exclusively to such interpretations as may be deduced from the document.

Cheers,

Lancer44

Jasa
07-25-2006, 07:28 AM
Stalin signed the non-aggression pact because he could not secure an anti-Fascist pact with the Western powers(he attempted top prior). He had secured a non-aggression pact with Poland before that country signed theirs with Germany(Poland had NA pacts with both USSR and Germany for a while). The land that the SU took from Poland in 1939 was based on the Curzon line, the demarcation agreed upon when Poland became independent. Poland had crossed this line and taken West Ukraine and West Belarussia, violating that line. Ergo the SU simply restored the boundary. At least this meant that Poland was spared some trouble from the UPA for a few years. When the Soviets were driven out of Galicia in 1941, the UPA attacked Poles with a vengeance.

Sneaksie
07-25-2006, 12:21 PM
And to continue the story about poor Poland, it was big ugly monster Stalin who insisted on giving the new Poland German territories - the southern two thirds of East Prussia and all of Pomerania, Brandenburg and Silesia, up to the Oder-Neisse line. Churchill was fully against it, for example.
Lancer, you continually picture USSR as some empire of pure evil - i assume it means all it did to Poland was evil too (of course). Do you suggest Poland should give these evil-given territories back to Germany, no? :)

Sneaksie
07-25-2006, 12:42 PM
Almost a caricature of western opinion about USSR and eastern front was achieved in a 'movie' "Enemy at the gates", and in PC game "Call of Duty", partly based on this film.
Here is a review of it by russian site www.battlefield.ru in English:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=108&lang=en

Lancer44
07-26-2006, 02:24 AM
Stalin signed the non-aggression pact because he could not secure an anti-Fascist pact with the Western powers(he attempted top prior).


If Stalin would like to secure anti Nazi pact with France and England he would do it. His conditions were unacceptable - he knew it and did not wanted any compromise. Removal of Litvinov, (a Jew) and Molotovs promotion to the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, clearly indicates that Stalin wanted co-operation with Germany.

He had secured a non-aggression pact with Poland before that country signed theirs with Germany(Poland had NA pacts with both USSR and Germany for a while).

Stalin violated non -aggression pact with Poland. The fact that Poland signed first NAP with USSR, than next with Germany is from the law and common logic point irrelevant. There always must be first and second signing. Stalin's understanding of "non-agression" was really specific - eg. Finland. USSR was simply aggressive, predatory country, bent on territorial expansion.

The land that the SU took from Poland in 1939 was based on the Curzon line, the demarcation agreed upon when Poland became independent.
Agreed with whom? Not with Poland and not with Ukrainian Republic, not even with soviet Russia or rather Lenin's government. Curzon was a British lord which had no faintest idea about situation in this region. He based his line on the border line between Prussia and Russia after 3-rd partition of Poland in 1797.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curzon_line

Poland had crossed this line and taken West Ukraine and West Belarussia, violating that line. Ergo the SU simply restored the boundary.

USSR could not restore any boundary because it never existed. Soviet Russia signed Riga Treaty with Poland in 1921. Signing this teraty Poland betrayed Ukrainians and prevented birth of Western oriented anti-soviet Ukraine. This fact and shortsightedness of Polish delegation in Riga completely chnged possible historical changes in this region of Europe. This and stupid policy towards Ukrainians between 1921 and 1939 caused their hatred towards Poland.

At least this meant that Poland was spared some trouble from the UPA for a few years. When the Soviets were driven out of Galicia in 1941, the UPA attacked Poles with a vengeance.

Not entirely true. UPA started extermination of Poles in 1942 and the worst massacres in the Volhyn area started in summer 1943. So what you're saying that soviets protected Poles is not true. UPA also tried to eliminate Polish population behind Curzon line - they called area between Bug and San rivers "Zakierzonski Kraj" - and claimed it for Independent Ukraine.
Now I can tell you my personal point of view, which is not very common in Poland. I think that fact that Poland lost her Eastern voivodships was very fortunate. If that would be different and Stalin after WWII give these land back to Poland, in 1989 or 1990, at latest, in this area we would have similar situation like in Kosovo or Bosnia. Civil war worse than in the Balkans and more widespread. In the long run Stalin was right forcing ethnic solution. The right solutions are not always just or painless and resettling of millions of Poles from land which was in their ancestors posession for many generations, was truly tragic. This pain had to be endured for the good of the future generations.
In my opinion any dreams of some fanatics about Lvov or Vilnius returned to Poland are criminal acts directed against Poland, Ukraine, stability of the region and should be penalised really severely. Unfortunately there is no medicine for stupidity…


And to continue the story about poor Poland, it was big ugly monster Stalin who insisted on giving the new Poland German territories - the southern two thirds of East Prussia and all of Pomerania, Brandenburg and Silesia, up to the Oder-Neisse line. Churchill was fully against it, for example.

Lancer, you continually picture USSR as some empire of pure evil - i assume it means all it did to Poland was evil too (of course). Do you suggest Poland should give these evil-given territories back to Germany, no?

He was ugly but small. lol He insisted giving away something which never belonged to him nor Russia. Poland was moved on the map towards West, she lost more on the East than gained at the West. The matter is quality. Giving away poor underdeveloped areas of Western Belarussia and Ukraine, Poland gained relatively rich lands of Eastern Germany and to least extend East Prussia. Industry in this areas was largely destroyed or later dismantled by Red Army "trophy hunting" teams. Resettlement of remaining Germans was also tragic and painful. In the same way as I think that Poland shold not claim Eastern territories, I do not support giving ex-German territories back to Germany. Once you give them back, there is nearly nothing left. 37 million people from nation which lives there for more than 1000 years deserve some space, even if Russian rulers had different opinion from time to time.
(BTW what rights USSR and now Russia had and have to Kaliningrad? Are you planning to give it back? Konigsberg … old Russian town… Like a cancer inside European Union lol)
I do not support however claims of some Germans demanding compensation for private property left on the other side of Oder or in Sudeten lands. They should be compensated by their German government. On the other side I don't think that families of Polish landowners which lost properties on ex-polish Eastern territories, have any rights to claim compensation from Ukrainian, Belarussian or Lithuanian governments. If they not received equivalent land in territories taken from Germany, they should be compensated by Polish government. I also think that demanding compensation from Russia for families of officers killed by NKVD in Katyn, Miednoye, Bykovina etc is bordering with insanity. These people were in the army, (POWs are still serving in the army of their country), they were killed by hostile power and their government, Polish government should pay these compensations if they are appropriate.
And finally, some voices stating that Allies committed war crimes, such as bombing Dresden and should compensate are completely crazy. In this case Poland should sue for destruction of Warsaw, Russia for Stalingrad, Kharkov and Minsk, England for London and Coventry etc, etc. Unfortunately trend to portrait Germans as victims of WWII is growing stronger every year.
Now you know my personal opinions which doesn't influence at all my views that WWII was joint venture of Stalin and Hitler, that USSR was hostile towards most of Eastern and Central European countries and that both Hitler's and Stalin's conquest of Europe caused irreparable damage, wasted couple of generations, pushed large parts of Europe into poverty and caused huge gap between living standards in Western and Eastern Europe. And please remember that imperial ambitions of USSR and Stalin were and are completely strange, odd and treated as aggression by average Pole, Romanian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Fin and even Ukrainian peasant. Neither of them felt any pride in USSR. For most people in these countries "hammer and sickle" is synonymous with swastika and does not cause any sentimental heart vibrations. This is a major difference between Russians and the rest of Europe and I'm afraid this difference will be very difficult to eradicate…

Cheers,

Lancer44

Sneaksie
07-26-2006, 06:54 AM
Anti-Nazi pact? Stalin tried, because eradication of communism was part of nazi ideology. But in Munchen USSR was clearly taught a lesson - that it has no place among 'civilized' western powers, and one much more important - that these powers do not keep a word or honour the treaty. During Chekhoslovakia-Germany crisis USSR was ONLY country which opposed Germany and several times assured Chekhoslovakian government that military aid will be given if Germany invades, as by Soviet-Chekhoslovakian treaty. USSR saw then the impotence of GB and France politics which basically given Chekhoslovakia to Hitler (they guaranteed it independence, by the way). Chekhoslovakia succumbed to Hitler's demands of surrender because of position of its western 'allies' and because one more nice and democratic country wanted part of the feast. Poland had its own plans for part of Chekhoslovakian territory, so it declared that even transport soviet planes would be considered hostile, not even mentioning any form of transit of Russian armed forces by land to Chekhoslovakia.
Chekhoslovakia was betrayed, and Poland took place in that 'deal' and got share of the prey.
Before moving on to Poland, Hitler sent diplomats to GB and USSR for probing possible outcomes of his interests in Poland. And suddenly (surprise!) USSR agreed for negotiations. Stalin tired playing hero against Germany alone with western democracies watching the show and pretending that all is OK, and he understood that in possible Russian-German war USSR will fight alone. And of course USSR did not want to pay for Poland's comfort with lives of russian soldiers. Only few years have passed since last war with Poland and it remained number one potentional enemy with what was heard from Warsaw.
The rest is history.

In fact, Lancer, all your accusations of communism, USSR are just icing on the cake. If it was Russian empire with tzar in place of USSR it would be the same for you. You hate not the ideology such as communism, not the country such as USSR, you hate Russian civilization as a whole. In mind you're trying to be reasonable (you are right about folly of demanding anything for compensation between Poland, Russia and other many european countries), but deep inside you're full of Pilsudsky or Bzhezinsky ideas and hatred. Just as most of the Poles you remember all the true and false grudges Russians made to Poles during last 1000 years, while completely forgetting all the grudges Poles made to Russians. I see your hatred in sentences like comparing Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) to 'cancer'.
Poles today (and i think always) like to think about history of their country like outpost of western civilization on border with ugly barbarians to the east. It's like you forgot Grunwald battle - Poles suffered blows from the west just like from the east. Russia from ancient times was facing enemies from both sides, and many times enemy came from Poland. Grudges are many from both sides, and counting them only leads to more confrontation and war as apogee of all confrontations.

Lancer44
07-26-2006, 10:11 PM
Anti-Nazi pact? Stalin tried, because eradication of communism was part of nazi ideology. But in Munchen USSR was clearly taught a lesson - that it has no place among 'civilized' western powers, and one much more important - that these powers do not keep a word or honour the treaty. During Chekhoslovakia-Germany crisis USSR was ONLY country which opposed Germany and several times assured Chekhoslovakian government that military aid will be given if Germany invades, as by Soviet-Chekhoslovakian treaty. USSR saw then the impotence of GB and France politics which basically given Chekhoslovakia to Hitler (they guaranteed it independence, by the way). Chekhoslovakia succumbed to Hitler's demands of surrender because of position of its western 'allies' and because one more nice and democratic country wanted part of the feast. Poland had its own plans for part of Chekhoslovakian territory, so it declared that even transport soviet planes would be considered hostile, not even mentioning any form of transit of Russian armed forces by land to Chekhoslovakia.
Chekhoslovakia was betrayed, and Poland took place in that 'deal' and got share of the prey.
Before moving on to Poland, Hitler sent diplomats to GB and USSR for probing possible outcomes of his interests in Poland. And suddenly (surprise!) USSR agreed for negotiations. Stalin tired playing hero against Germany alone with western democracies watching the show and pretending that all is OK, and he understood that in possible Russian-German war USSR will fight alone. And of course USSR did not want to pay for Poland's comfort with lives of russian soldiers. Only few years have passed since last war with Poland and it remained number one potentional enemy with what was heard from Warsaw.
The rest is history.

And because of it, I will neatly continue my topic of USSR - nazi Germany co-operation. As you see at the little picture at my signature it is my favovrite topic and I love to remind everyone that USSR = Third Reich.
The only difference was that Hitler lost and Stalin won the war.


In fact, Lancer, all your accusations of communism, USSR are just icing on the cake. If it was Russian empire with tzar in place of USSR it would be the same for you. You hate not the ideology such as communism, not the country such as USSR, you hate Russian civilization as a whole. In mind you're trying to be reasonable (you are right about folly of demanding anything for compensation between Poland, Russia and other many european countries), but deep inside you're full of Pilsudsky or Bzhezinsky ideas and hatred. Just as most of the Poles you remember all the true and false grudges Russians made to Poles during last 1000 years, while completely forgetting all the grudges Poles made to Russians. I see your hatred in sentences like comparing Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) to 'cancer'.
Poles today (and i think always) like to think about history of their country like outpost of western civilization on border with ugly barbarians to the east. It's like you forgot Grunwald battle - Poles suffered blows from the west just like from the east. Russia from ancient times was facing enemies from both sides, and many times enemy came from Poland. Grudges are many from both sides, and counting them only leads to more confrontation and war as apogee of all confrontations.

Hmm, hatred... Brzezinsky ideas...I would rather call it "mutual lack of understanding on both sides" and "deep suspicion".

Yes, we had a few wars and I have to admit that particularly uprisings in 1830 and 1863 are well remembered by Poles. Also Insurection in 1794.
And of course 17 of September 1939.

And you remember well 1610 - 1612 when Polish army occupiedv Moscow, but you tend to forget that Great Smuta was a period of anarchy and main reason for 1609 war was fact that Vasyl Szujski get Swedish army to help himself.

Todays suspicion is fuelled by Russia's military presence in the region. Can you explain what rights Russian Federation have to Kaliningrad - Konigsborg?
It is the biggest military base in the world.

"When Russia withdrew all its former Warsaw Pact forces from Poland and the Baltic states during 1992-94, some air, naval, and ground forces were relocated to Kaliningrad, ostensibly because of housing shortages elsewhere in Russia. In mid-1996 the official military garrison was estimated at 24,000 ground troops of the 11th Guards Combined Arms Army, including one tank division and three motorized rifle divisions, three artillery brigades, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, and attack helicopters. The Baltic Fleet, which has its headquarters at Kaliningrad, includes three cruisers, two destroyers, eighteen frigates, sixty-five patrol boats, and 195 combat aircraft, together with one brigade of naval infantry and two regiments of coastal defense artillery. Western experts estimate that the total Kaliningrad garrison includes as many as 200,000 military personnel, compared with the official Russian figure of 100,000.

In 1993 the population of the enclave was about 900,000, of whom about 700,000 were Russians. There is strong sentiment in favor of autonomy among the civilian population, and international pressure continues to advocate reducing the garrison to a level of "reasonable sufficiency," far below its current size. Many Russian military authorities agree with this idea because maintaining the Kaliningrad force is extremely expensive. However, a large-scale deemphasis of the military would be difficult because the entire oblast has been structured to meet the needs of the armed forces."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/kor-kaliningrad.htm

And please explain why Russian military still uses name Leningrad Military District? It is just sentiment to Lenin? Too many sentiments to historical figures known by the whole world as murderers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/vo-leningrad.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Leningrad+Military+District&btnG=Google+Search

Lancer44

Lancer44
07-27-2006, 06:05 AM
This post is dedicated to Sneaksie with broad smile.

Pictures below are from famous Victory Parade in Brest Litovsk. (Parada Pobedy)
Two years later Brest Litovsk fortress was heroically defended by soviet troops.

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8871/brestlitowskqn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2029/brest4il2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Real friendship cemented with Polish blood.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4864/brest5vy9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
What a lovely tankers! (Tri tankisty, tri viesielye druga, ekipaz masziny boievoy)

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4048/brest7xs4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Another handsome tanker with friends in the background

Lancer44
07-27-2006, 06:17 AM
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/817/brest8et7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Some more pics you can find here:

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/aktual_17wrzesien39.html

And at last you can read what comrad Molotov said about England, France and Finland:

http://www.histdoc.net/history/molotov.html

"Germany, which has lately united 80 million Germans, has submitted certain neighboring countries to her supremacy and gained military strength in many aspects, and thus has become, as clearly can be seen, a dangerous rival to principal imperialistic powers in Europe - England and France. That is why they declared war on Germany on a pretext of fulfilling the obligations given to Poland. It is now clearer than ever, how remote the real aims of the cabinets in these countries were from the interests of defending the now disintegrated Poland or Czechoslovakia. This is shown if only by the fact, that the British and French governments declared that their aim in this war is to smash and dismember Germany, although this target is concealed from the masses of the people under the cover of slogans of defending the "democratic" countries and the "rights" of small nations.

When the Soviet Union did not want to be an accomplice with England and France in carrying out this imperialistic policy against Germany, the hostility in their attitudes regarding the Soviet Union became still more pronounced, giving a vivid evidence, how profound the class roots of the imperialists' hostile politics against the socialist state are. The Anglo-French imperialists were ready to escalate the war started in Finland to a war against the USSR and not only utilizing Finland to this purpose - but also Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Norway."

What a lovely bloke this comrad Molotov...

Anyone which want to learn more about "non-aggression" pact which comrad Molotov signed with his friend Ribbentrop can look here:

http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Cheers,

Lancer44

Jasa
07-27-2006, 10:00 AM
Seeing as how Russia gave you East Prussia you ought to be more greatful. How much land(actual Polish land, not Galicia) did the USSR steal from Poland? Nothing. Kalingrad was East Prussia, not Polish. When the Germans arrived they stole the Wartheland and forcibly drove the Polish population out. The Germans thus deserved to lose East Prussia.

Lancer44
07-27-2006, 08:06 PM
Seeing as how Russia gave you East Prussia you ought to be more greatful. How much land(actual Polish land, not Galicia) did the USSR steal from Poland? Nothing. Kalingrad was East Prussia, not Polish. When the Germans arrived they stole the Wartheland and forcibly drove the Polish population out. The Germans thus deserved to lose East Prussia.


What you wrote has got nothing to the topic...
Jasa, before writing anything on this Forum, please read some books, search the net, be familiar with the topic. What you currently writing is over-simplified, naive and badly affect quality of the Forum.

Lancer44

Chevan
07-28-2006, 06:03 AM
What you wrote has got nothing to the topic...
Jasa, before writing anything on this Forum, please read some books, search the net, be familiar with the topic. What you currently writing is over-simplified, naive and badly affect quality of the Forum.

Lancer44
Hi , Lancer.
I am back.
Lancer , please don't indicate to other members in the forum the nonconformity of theme if you itself write OFF TOPIC (about modern Leningrad Military District). I remember well that exactly you frequently pass on the outside themes.

Lancer, I see your views not changed since times of Cool war. It's very primitive position to consider Germany and USSR as single aggressors in WW2.
But i well understand you points. You hope that throwing the blame just into Stalin ang Hitler it's wiil forget about agressions of other countries befor WW2.
It's seems, you memory has some troubles:


....... particularly uprisings in 1830 and 1863 ....... Also Insurection in 1794.
...remember well 1610 - 1612 , .
And of course 17 of September 1939.

But you nothing remember till september 1939. It's strange. You nothing know about some interesting events which lead Europe to war.
To the happiness, some your russian friends can help to recall about that events and important role which played some Eastern European countries (Poland as example) in growth of german aggression befor WW2.

Sneaksie was right , your rusofobia has genetic reason. Sorry mate, i can't halp you to decide your own problems.

Chevan
07-28-2006, 06:15 AM
Seeing as how Russia gave you East Prussia you ought to be more greatful. How much land(actual Polish land, not Galicia) did the USSR steal from Poland? Nothing. Kalingrad was East Prussia, not Polish. When the Germans arrived they stole the Wartheland and forcibly drove the Polish population out. The Germans thus deserved to lose East Prussia.
Hi Jase.
Nice to meet.
You affected very interesting theme about the territories of East Prussia which Stalin "presented" to Poland after World War II. As you think why Poles took the foreign territory?
And what do Czechs think about Germany-Polish aggression in 1938 ?

Jasa
07-28-2006, 10:48 AM
Hi Jase.
Nice to meet.
You affected very interesting theme about the territories of East Prussia which Stalin "presented" to Poland after World War II. As you think why Poles took the foreign territory?
And what do Czechs think about Germany-Polish aggression in 1938 ?


Poland certainly didn't mind grabbing that piece of Slovakia, as well as Galicia and West Belarus. Let's not forget that they tried to take the rest of Ukraine as well in the Russo-Polish war.

Chevan
07-29-2006, 02:15 PM
Poland certainly didn't mind grabbing that piece of Slovakia, as well as Galicia and West Belarus. Let's not forget that they tried to take the rest of Ukraine as well in the Russo-Polish war.
Do you mean Russo-Polish war in 1921?

Jasa
07-29-2006, 02:38 PM
Do you mean Russo-Polish war in 1921?


Yes, but I have also recently read that the Beck government discussed the possiblity of claims to Eastern Ukraine with Ribbentrop as well. Of course we all know how that worked out.

Chevan
07-29-2006, 06:26 PM
Yes, but I have also recently read that the Beck government discussed the possiblity of claims to Eastern Ukraine with Ribbentrop as well. Of course we all know how that worked out.
Yes it's true , i read about German-Polish "plans" against Ukraine.
That was write Ribbentrop about talks with Beck.


"
on 6 of January of 1939. Munich

.. I certified Beck in the fact that we were interested in the Soviet Ukraine only inasmuch as we wherever only we can, made with Russian damage, just as they to us, therefore, naturally, we support fixed contacts with the Russian Ukraine. Never we had any matters concerning the Polish Ukrainians, on the contrary, this strictly was avoided. The Fuehrer indeed already presented our negative position with respect to the great Ukraine. Entire evil, as me it seems, in the fact that anti-Russian agitation in the Ukraine always exerts, it goes without saying, a certain reverse influence on the Polish national minority groups and Ukrainians in Carpathian Russia. But this, in my opinion, it is possible to change only if Poland and we will in every respect collaborate in a Ukrainian question. It said to Beck that, as it seems me, with the general wide regulating of all problems between Poland and by us it would be possible to completely agree in order to examine the Ukrainian question as the privilege of Poland and to in every way possible support it with the study of this problem. This furthermore has by prerequisite ever more explicit anti-Russian position of Poland, otherwise hardly there can be overall interests. In this connection it said to Beck, it was not intended during one excellent day to be joined to the anti-Comintern pact. Beck elucidated, that now this is impossible, the activity of comintern undergoes in Poland the legal prosecution, and these questions always strictly divided from the state relations with Russia. Poland, according to Beck, does everything in order to collaborate with us against the comintern in the region of police measures, but if it concludes on this question political agreement with Germany, then it will not be able to support the peaceful good neighborly relations with Russia, necessary for Poland for its calmness. Nevertheless Beck promised that the Polish policy in the future, perhaps, will be able to be developed in this respect in the direction desired by us. I asked Beck, they did not turn from the ambitious aspirations of marshal Pilsudskiy to this direction, i.e., from the claims in the Ukraine. This it, smiling, answered me, that they were already in Kiev itself and that these aspirations, undoubtedly, are still living and today. Then I thanked Mr. Beck for his invitation to visit Warsaw. Date yet they did not establish. They agreed, that Mr. Beck let us again thoroughly think over entire complex of possible agreement between Poland and by us ".


on 26 January, 1939, Warsaw

.. Then I again spoke with mr. Beck about the policy of Poland and Germany with respect to the Soviet Union and in this connection also regarding the Great Ukraine; I again proposed collaboration between Poland and Germany in this region. Mr. Beck did not hide, that Poland pretends in the Soviet Ukraine and to the output to the Black sea; it here allegedly the existing dangers, which, in the opinion of Polish side, the agreement with Germany, directed against the Soviet Union, will involve for Poland. However, it, speaking about the future of the Soviet Union, expressed the opinion that the Soviet Union either will be pulled down as a result of the internal disintegration or in order to avoid this lot, it will previously gather into the cam all its forces it will deliver impact. I to mr. Beck the passive nature of his position and stated that it would be more expediently prevent the development, which it predicts, and to come out against the Soviet Union in the propagandistic plan. In my opinion, it would say , the connection of Poland to the anti-Comintern powers to it threatened in no way, on the contrary, safety of Poland would only win because Poland would prove to be with us in one boat. Mr. Beck said that also this question he will seriously think over ".

It's amazing , but after the aggression in Slovakia (till half year to 1 september 1939), Poland build own plan to capture the alien territory in company with Hitler(!!!).

Lancer44
07-29-2006, 11:39 PM
Yes it's true , i read about German-Polish "plans" against Ukraine.
That was write Ribbentrop about talks with Beck.

It's amazing , but after the aggression in Slovakia (till half year to 1 september 1939), Poland build own plan to capture the alien territory in company with Hitler(!!!).

Chevan, provide sources for your quotes.
The only comment I can have to your quotes from Ribbentrop - it is great pity and wasted opportunity that Poland did not joined Germany early 1939...

Nothing anti-Russian here, just pure logic, without any sentiments and ideology.

Lancer44

Jasa
07-30-2006, 07:49 AM
That would have been impossible because the Germans wanted Poland for their own ends. I am surprised you have so much affection for a nation that used false pretenses to start a war against Poland(Gleiwitz incident), stole the Wartheland, killed somewhere around 2 million Poles, and let the UPA run amok in Galicia and Eastern Poland. Not to mention Germany still exploits Poland via legalized prostitution.

Chevan
07-30-2006, 07:59 AM
Chevan, provide sources for your quotes.
The only comment I can have to your quotes from Ribbentrop - it is great pity and wasted opportunity that Poland did not joined Germany early 1939...

Nothing anti-Russian here, just pure logic, without any sentiments and ideology.

Lancer44
Please Lancer,
Joachim Von Ribbentrop "Memoirs of Nazi diplomat".Moscow 1998.
English sours:
Ribbentrop J. Memoirs. London, 1954
You can easy find it in net.
Mate, i just wonder that you nothing know about Polish-Germans collaboration till 1939.
If you have "great pity that Poland did not joined Germany early 1939" agains USSR ( therefore against France and Britain) it just talk about your unscrupulousness.

Lancer44
07-30-2006, 07:07 PM
Please Lancer,
Joachim Von Ribbentrop "Memoirs of Nazi diplomat".Moscow 1998.
English sours:
Ribbentrop J. Memoirs. London, 1954
You can easy find it in net.
Mate, i just wonder that you nothing know about Polish-Germans collaboration till 1939.
If you have "great pity that Poland did not joined Germany early 1939" agains USSR ( therefore against France and Britain) it just talk about your unscrupulousness.

Thanks Chevan,

Beck turned down German proposals because of British "guarantees" which led to war.
Yes I'm unscrupulous. Looking coldly at all pluses and minuses, Poland would be much better off joining Germany than honourably fight for "democracies" than being sold by them to Stalin. Stalin would get Poland anyway but much less fighting on Polish territory and less losses would follow.
It's not that I symphatize with Hitler. I despise nazizm. But if Russians can understand Molotov - Ribbentrop pact as politically clever, time buying measure, I can think in the same frame - no sentiments just cold calculation.

Cheers,

Lancer44

Chevan
07-31-2006, 02:59 AM
Thanks Chevan,

Beck turned down German proposals because of British "guarantees" which led to war.
Yes I'm unscrupulous. Looking coldly at all pluses and minuses, Poland would be much better off joining Germany than honourably fight for "democracies" than being sold by them to Stalin. Stalin would get Poland anyway but much less fighting on Polish territory and less losses would follow.
It's not that I symphatize with Hitler. I despise nazizm. But if Russians can understand Molotov - Ribbentrop pact as politically clever, time buying measure, I can think in the same frame - no sentiments just cold calculation.

Cheers,

Lancer44
Beck turned down German proposals but he never hided aggresive polish plans to Ukraine.
Mate, do you seriously think that politic of Poland befor ww2 was "honourably fight for democracies"?
I do not wish to insult your national feelings, but please be the honest.
If you convict (it's your law right) the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as the reason of quick defeat of Poland , you have to be the bold to recognize the aggresive polish plans. Poland used any possibility to cupture alien territory till 1939.
Read please what wrote Winston Churchill about polish diplomaty before ww2 in it's work "The Second world war".