PDA

View Full Version : How justfiled the Soviet annexation of former Polish territories in 1939 was?



Egorka
02-02-2007, 05:32 PM
Hello!

I would like to invite you to share the knowledge you have about the annexation by USSR the eastern part of Poland in 1939. Please also share your opinion.

Could you try to present firstly points why it was not justified, and after the points, that could justify (or rather explain) it. Since most of people here are so objective (as we found in another thread of this forum), please, regardless of your opinion try to come up with argument for both sides.

These are my rough ideas:

Unjustified:


The territory belonged to a sovereign state.
USSR and Poland had none-aggression pact signed in 1932. It was broken by USSR in 1939.
It was a sign of aggressive expansionist imperial advance.


Justified:


The territories in question were annexed during the Polish-Soviet war in 1920. The war was started by Poland
The area was internationally (western allies, especially Britain) acknowledged in 1919, as belonging to the USSR. This is clear from the Curzon line proposal.
The area was not ethnically Polish. Some enclaves of Polish population were present. At best there were 39% of Poles and it is after the extensive polish colonization during the 1920th.
Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it's original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)
According to Soviet government Poland as a state seized to exist on 15 of September after the Polish government collapsed and therefore all the agreements were void. Therefore, as mentioned in the note to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, formally USSR did not break any rules by reclaiming the land.
USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire


What would be your proposal? What have I missed?
I am sure Lancer44 has a lot to say! ;) I better take my helmet on...

Remark: This thread is NOT about what happened after the territories were annexed. Please respect.

Kovalski
02-03-2007, 03:34 AM
Hi Egorka,

take off your helmet, it won't be needed ;)



The territories in question were annexed during the Polish-Soviet war in 1920. The war was started by Poland


None of sides who took part in war of 1920-21 needed an encouragement of any kind. Some polish historians point out a "russina aggression" and some russian historians point out a "polish aggression". In fact none of sides was an aggressor. The immediate cause of war was the withdrawal of German armed forces from the areas beetween ones controlled by Russians and Poles.
So the reason that war was started by Poland is not true.



Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it's original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)


This is very controversial. We should admit that for Poles and Russians disscussed territorries had a vital significance, and were considered as a "theirs".
As we had one clash with Chevan about that, I think we shouldn't judge who has "historical" rights to these territorries.



The area was not ethnically Polish. Some enclaves of Polish population were present. At best there were 39% of Poles and it is after the extensive polish colonization during the 1920th.

Generally I agree, but it would be a huge lie, if you say that in all areas taken by Soviets in 1939 Poles were in minority. There were areas where Poles were in majority (over 60 % - some western parts of discussed territorries).



According to Soviet government Poland as a state seized to exist on 15 of September after the Polish government collapsed and therefore all the agreements were void. Therefore, as mentioned in the note to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, formally USSR did not break any rules by reclaiming the land.

It was opinion of Soviet goverment only. Polish goverment had control over eastern areas after 15th of September. And the goverment never collapsed.



The area was internationally (western allies, especially Britain) acknowledged in 1919, as belonging to the USSR. This is clear from the Curzon line proposal.

The Curzon's line was considered in Poland as unjust, so it wasn't accepted, but I agree that Soviets could use it as an argument.



USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire

True.

Cheers,
Kovalski

deadkenny
02-03-2007, 02:41 PM
Justified:


The territories in question were annexed during the Polish-Soviet war in 1920. The war was started by Poland
The area was internationally (western allies, especially Britain) acknowledged in 1919, as belonging to the USSR. This is clear from the Curzon line proposal.
The area was not ethnically Polish. Some enclaves of Polish population were present. At best there were 39% of Poles and it is after the extensive polish colonization during the 1920th.
Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it's original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)
According to Soviet government Poland as a state seized to exist on 15 of September after the Polish government collapsed and therefore all the agreements were void. Therefore, as mentioned in the note to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, formally USSR did not break any rules by reclaiming the land.
USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire


A couple comments:

Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I'm not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.

The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people's in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or 'White Russian' populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it's OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?

I'm not sure trying to 'blame' Poland for the 1920 war justifies the Soviet annexation in 1939. The communists were trying to 'encourage' communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter. The Red Army advanced nearly to Warsaw, well within any reasonable definition of legitimately Polish territory, before they were forced back. So it's not really legit to characterize the 1920 war simply as an act of Polish aggression whereby the Poles annexed territory that rightfully belong to the Soviet Union - the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.

Lancer44
02-04-2007, 07:19 PM
Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I'm not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.

Deadkenny is perfectly right.

Central Poland become part of the Russian Tsarist Empire after consecutive annexations in 18 and 19 century.
The whole argument of eastern territories belonging to Russia can be compared to famous GRU "cupboard".
Short joke below illustrates how one or more uncertain information can be used to support each other:

KGB is questioning suspect which was arrested with a large sum of money.
- Where these money come from?
- They come from the cupboard...
- Who put them into the cupboard?
- My wife. She get them from myself.
- So, where the money come from?
- I already told you that they come from the cupboard!

There is no justification for invasion and annexations.
Any discussion about it is pointless. And territorial changes after WWII are irreversible.
Former Polish eastern territories belong now to Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians.
So be it. Any claims that annexations were "unjust" can be compared to theoretical claims of Indians in USA which can say that they ancestors sold Manhattan for some blankets, axes and other trifles and that the deal was "unjust".

Cheers,

Lancer44

Chevan
02-05-2007, 02:54 AM
Hello my friends.

Well looking to the our Polish-Russian relations and many wars for the control of lands, i can say that our relations were soft or friendly.
Regarding the 1939 i don't think the we could understand the events only from the Soviet-polish views. Don't forget please till 1939 there were a very importaint political events in Europe.

Germany by giants steps moved to the East. After the Munich (1938) it was absolutly clear the motives of Britain and France to direct the German agression to the East.
Nobody except USSR (!!!) tryed to support or understand the Chech position in this question. Folowing of its colonian tradithions Britain and France simply devided the independent Chechoslovakia and presented its to the Hitler. The Chech president was presented with a fact, he even wasn't invited to the meeting where Chemberlen, Deladie, Mussolini and Hitler discussed the problem.
Moreover Chech president Edvard Benesh was warned if he tryed to appeal to the USSR for the help , the Britain and France could support the Germany in war against USSR.(!!!)

So as you could see not USSR was the first who signed the "pieceful" aggreements with Nazi till WW2.
When Stalin looked as easy so called "Western democraties" solved the problems and what's method they did use it was not so criminal for him had to agree with germans.

Personaly i think the annexion of so called Western Belorussia and Ukrain was the mistake becouse its nationalist movenment was the worst. If till the 1939 ( and during the german occupation) the UPA-UNCO killed the poles, then after the WW2 they killed soviets and civils Ukrains who supported the joining to the USSR. "Forests brothers" killed the peoples till the end of 1950.
I think the REALLY independent Ukrain and Belorussia is the best way for all us. Not with NATO or Russia but the independent.


Cheers.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 03:17 AM
Kovalski:


None of sides who took part in war of 1920-21 needed an encouragement of any kind. Some polish historians point out a "russina aggression" and some russian historians point out a "polish aggression". In fact none of sides was an aggressor. The immediate cause of war was the withdrawal of German armed forces from the areas beetween ones controlled by Russians and Poles.
So the reason that war was started by Poland is not true.
Capturing Kiev is not a sign of aggression for you? Have you tried to see how far Kiev is from the Polish border of 1919? Or maybe Kiev had very high Polish population ratio. ;) As you see I strongly disagree with you on this point.


This is very controversial. We should admit that for Poles and Russians discussed territorries had a vital significance, and were considered as a "theirs".
As we had one clash with Chevan about that, I think we shouldn't judge who has "historical" rights to these territorries.
It is controversial indeed. It is not about finding someone's excusive rights on that peice of land. It is about acknowledging that Soviet Russia had at least equally justifiable claim.


Generally I agree, but it would be a huge lie, if you say that in all areas taken by Soviets in 1939 Poles were in minority. There were areas where Poles were in majority (over 60 % - some western parts of discussed territorries).
Lying is not the way forward. :roll: There were areas with majority of Polish population, but this areas were small in area. I will post some maps I have from different sources (pre war books).
But the essence of it is the Eastern Poland had very little Polish population in 1920. And the demographics in 1939 were formed by the Polish colonisation policies (this lead up to 40% polish population).
Therefore the USSR’s government considered this as unjust colonisation of unjustfully controlled land (Much what Baltic countries say about Russian colonization after the war).
Note that I am not moralising this point, just barely bringing it forward.


It was opinion of Soviet government only. Polish government had control over eastern areas after 15th of September. And the goverment never collapsed.
I guess you are right that it was only USSR's opinion. Regarding the scale of the control the Polish goverment had after it fled to Rumania is debateable. But I do not have any facts regarding it now.


The Curzon's line was considered in Poland as unjust, so it wasn't accepted, but I agree that Soviets could use it as an argument.
The Curzon line was accepted by neither Poland nor Russia.
I just wanted to stress that the world community was having the opinion that this land rather belongs to Russia.


Thanks for the answer, Kovalski. I will take my helmet off. /Igor takes his helmet off, but places it over groin... just in case.../

Lexa
02-05-2007, 04:30 AM
Justified:


The territories in question were annexed during the Polish-Soviet war in 1920. The war was started by Poland
The area was internationally (western allies, especially Britain) acknowledged in 1919, as belonging to the USSR. This is clear from the Curzon line proposal.
The area was not ethnically Polish. Some enclaves of Polish population were present. At best there were 39% of Poles and it is after the extensive polish colonization during the 1920th.
Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it's original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)
According to Soviet government Poland as a state seized to exist on 15 of September after the Polish government collapsed and therefore all the agreements were void. Therefore, as mentioned in the note to the Polish ambassador in Moscow, formally USSR did not break any rules by reclaiming the land.
USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire



If these ideas are taken as valid reasons for aggression and annexation, then wars should never stop.
I think Stalin wanted USSR to have stronger position before inevitable war with Germany. It's an explanation, not justification.

Chevan
02-05-2007, 04:43 AM
A couple comments:

Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I'm not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.

I have mention already the captiring the territories was not particalar doing of USSR till the WW2. There a lot of examples when the Western European state had the colonian war for the territories where the have zero majiority. In fact neither of Wester Ukrain and nor Belorussian didn't admit the polish power in they territories.Moreover till the 1939 those territories had a power anti-polish movenment ( like later anti-soviet).


The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people's in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or 'White Russian' populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it's OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?

But this didn't stop the americans to capture the mexican states like Texas or captured the California. Moreover this was absolutly don't stop them to take a colonian war for Phillipines where perished a lot of native peoples.
Here is one problem in your point.
Its seems you forgot that the allies had the mutial agreements of borders after the WW2.
Those agreemeth give the USSR juridical right to join the Western Ukrain and Belorussia to the USSR. Both Churchill and Rosevelt even didn't dispute this point(Another matter was the qustion of polish gov on which allies had its own view).
Moreover regarding the Polish territories.
After the WW2 Poland according the Jalta and Potsdam agreements send to USSR about 177 000 square km of its eastern territories, but it got from the Germany about 100 000 square km ( Most of Eastern Prussia, part of Brandenburg land and Silesia). And all allies had were agreeable with.
Thus all sides including USA,Britain and France were responsiple for post-WW2 annextion of territories ( not only Poland but in all the Eastern Europe).
So claiming the USSR on annextions you have to agree to claim any othe allies agreements after WW2.


The communists were trying to 'encourage' communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter.
....the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.

It's not correct.
The comunist regimes were established in answer to allies who create "democraties" in Italy , France and ets.
In fact there were the mostly pro-communist leader who commanded the resistance in western Europe.But allies simply ignored them as power after liberating. After WW2 the allies had formed "democratic" govenments which they wish without any objection from USSR. This was a common practice in WW2.
If you watch to the allies policy in the South Eastern asia( for instance in Birma). Where they had formed the "democratic" gov in spirit of colonian policy. The real national leaders which fight for independence of its states EVEN wasn't invited to the gvenment.
So i don't think it was a character matter of Stalin - to install the pro-soviet govn, He had a excellent teacher in faces of US-UK. ;)

Cheers.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 04:44 AM
If these ideas are taken as valid reasons for aggression and annexation, then wars should never stop.
I think Stalin wanted USSR to have stronger position before inevitable war with Germany. It's an explanation, not justification.

Sure, sure!!! I guess I was not clear enough.
My point is that, this particular action was explainable and logical as a part of the political game played in Europe between the two wars.
But I don't want to claim that it was moral to do so or even more deporting people after.

Chevan
02-05-2007, 05:21 AM
Deadkenny is perfectly right.

Central Poland become part of the Russian Tsarist Empire after consecutive annexations in 18 and 19 century.

And what was till 18 century?
How Poland could took the controll over its areas?


The whole argument of eastern territories belonging to Russia can be compared to famous GRU "cupboard".
Short joke below illustrates how one or more uncertain information can be used to support each other:

KGB is questioning suspect which was arrested with a large sum of money.
- Where these money come from?
- They come from the cupboard...
- Who put them into the cupboard?
- My wife. She get them from myself.
- So, where the money come from?
- I already told you that they come from the cupboard!

Ha ha ha
Thanks mate i remember this anekdote.
Well indeed the just one side could pretend to those lands - Ukrain and Belorussia, not Russia (USSR) or Poland.
To claim the Stalin of annexion of "polish" lands in 1939 is pointless. The Poles had no more rights to those land than the USSR.


There is no justification for invasion and annexations.
Any discussion about it is pointless. And territorial changes after WWII are irreversible.
Former Polish eastern territories belong now to Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians.
So be it.

Right mate, i think if no, the some Garmans might to wish back the Eastern Prussia which Poland captured after WW2 with allies help;) :)


Cheers.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 06:28 AM
Deadkenny:


Oh my God! They killed Kenny!!!! :D


Much of central Poland, including Warsaw, was part of the Russian Empire, prior to WWI. So I'm not sure how that justifies the Soviet Union taking the eastern territories in particular.
I agree, the way you put it, it does not justify/explain what happened.
But there was clear ethnografic difference between west and east of Poland. It is that difference that is the key here.


The specific territories annexed had more to do with their agreement with Nazi Germany, not the ethnic make-up of the people's in those territories. True, in some areas there were large, even majority, Ukrainian or 'White Russian' populations. But there were also large numbers / majorities of Poles in other parts. To look at the overall percentages in the territories as a whole is somewhat misleading. After all, if one considers the area of North America comprising the U.S.A. and Canada, the population is 90% American. Does that mean that it's OK for the U.S. to annex Canada?
This example has nothing to do with Polands case. If you had said that Canada had more than 60% Americans (if one could distinguish them from Canadians) then the chances are it could lead to confrontation. At least in 19th century.


I'm not sure trying to 'blame' Poland for the 1920 war justifies the Soviet annexation in 1939. The communists were trying to 'encourage' communist regimes throughout Europe, and would have been happy to have a communist Poland, and Germany for that matter. The Red Army advanced nearly to Warsaw, well within any reasonable definition of legitimately Polish territory, before they were forced back. So it's not really legit to characterize the 1920 war simply as an act of Polish aggression whereby the Poles annexed territory that rightfully belong to the Soviet Union - the communists were trying to annex as much as they could in the other direction at the same time.
It does not justify, but explains. Poland in 1920 was just as agressive as USSR was 1939. The Red Army advanced after Poles were all the way to Kiev. Please be consitent in presenting the events order.

But it is right that the Polish march of Red Army in 1920 was an attempt for the World Revolution. The politics in Soviet Russia in the beginning of 1920th was extermist bolshevic one. But it does not erase the fact that Poland started the agression in 1919.

So all in all, the Polish actions in 1920 were on the same level as Stalin's in 1939.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 06:36 AM
Lancer44:

Correct me if I am wrong, but Poland was given to Russia in 19th century as the result of the international conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna).
This happened largely due to active polish assosiation with Napoleon. Therefore Poland was punished by the winning countries.
Obviously Russia was the one mostly interested, but there was concensus in the international community about this issue.

Lexa
02-05-2007, 07:40 AM
Egorka, I'm still not sure that I've got your point.

Poland also was aggressive in 20th century and earlier, as well as many other countries were.

I think the main difference between Russian and Polish mistakes in the past is our difference in size. In 20th century, Russia was much bigger and stronger, so the results of its mistakes and crimes were much more significant than those of Poland.

And note that Russia is still big and strong enough :D So when you write about justifications for Stalin's agressive policy... I'm afraid some Poles read this message as "the Russians are still ready to attack if they find it reasonable". I wish I'm wrong ;)

Egorka
02-05-2007, 08:32 AM
Lexa, do not worry I am a peaceful person! I am not trying to provoke anyone in here. And I am not for attacking neighbours if the situation is right.

I do understand that Poles may tend to think the way you explained. I can see sertain ground for such position.
But we are here for learning about what happened with our countries and us in 20th century. I am sorry if someone finds this subject painful to discuss. But I think it should be discussed. I suppress my egoistic nationalistic thought, because I contiously undertand that it leads me away from understanding from what really happened. And I expect the same from others.

So I think it is correct to put this question the way I did. And once again I ment "explain", not "justify".

Chevan
02-05-2007, 11:20 AM
I think Egorka right.
Certainly we need to discuss the problem becouse it really exists.
I have to say this polish guys are my friends, so i haven't intention to offend somebody and i ready to hear the opposite point. I think if we will find the compromiss our communicaition will only win.

Cheers.

Lexa
02-05-2007, 12:20 PM
Compromise on what? USSR recognized sovereignity and borders of Poland by Riga treaty in 1921. Whether these borders were good or bad, they were officially accepted by the legal Soviet government. So in 1939, it was pure agression, in my opinion.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 01:25 PM
Lexa:

I agree it was an agression.

Do you suggest we stop here? I think it is ok to talk. We are grown ups here. What is the problem? Why can not we just discuss our common past calmly?

In fact that is why I like such forums, because I can get in contact with real Poles (in this particular case) and find out their side of the story. I can not read books and articles in Polish. So how would I find thier point of view? But I also expect that they would be also willing to hear opposite opinions. What is wrong with that?

In case of 1939 it was an agression that was born out previous agression of 1919. Instead of just saying evil Stalin did this and that, I think we should try to see "broader picture".

I do not like to hear about the crimes that the goverment and people of my country were involved in. It hurts me at heart. But I swallow this feeling, because one can never learn and clear his soul without acknowledging the sins.

Chevan
02-05-2007, 01:32 PM
Compromise on what?
Compromise between our national senses and our slav friendship. What don't you understand?


USSR recognized sovereignity and borders of Poland by Riga treaty in 1921. Whether these borders were good or bad, they were officially accepted by the legal Soviet government. So in 1939, it was pure agression, in my opinion.
Nobody deny it was agression.
The question was that it was the simular agreession like the polish capturing of Kiev in 1919, or polish capturing the Teshin area of Chechoslovakia in 1938.

This was a mistake of Stalin, but it was a forced measure try to stop German agression. Becouse Poland (like and Britain and France) refused the allies agreement with Stalin.

This was a dirty politic , nothing personal as it said ;)

Cheers.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 02:01 PM
Here is the map of the Polands population in 1931 from the Polish Wikipedia page (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C5%84stwo_wielonarodowe).
Go to the wikipedia page to see larger image.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/HistPol-narodowosci1931.png/300px-HistPol-narodowosci1931.png

Lexa
02-05-2007, 02:17 PM
In case of 1939 it was an agression that was born out previous agression of 1919. Instead of just saying evil Stalin did this and that, I think we should try to see "broader picture".

As far as I know, there were no officially recognized borders and treaties between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919. Soviet Russia wasn't legal successor of Russian Empire. So, it's difficult to regard Polish campaign of 1919 as formal agression against Russia. But possibly Kiev campaign of Pilsudski was the main reason why Stalin later regarded Poland as enemy.

Btw., many Russian people fought against bolsheviks on the Polish side. And frankly speaking, I don't know which side I'd prefer to join if I had to choose.



Do you suggest we stop here? I think it is ok to talk. We are grown ups here. What is the problem? Why can not we just discuss our common past calmly?

Sure, we can and we must. You're right, Igor.

Remember also about other territorial gains by USSR in accordance with secret protocols to the M-R pact. They all can't be explained by earlier agressions of these countires or by care about some national groups.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 03:15 PM
Here is the new German-USSR border as it was agreed in August 1939.
This is a map from "Pravda" newspaper on 27-Sep-1939. Taken from site: http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/historia.htm

http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/granica.jpg

And below is the final border from 28-Sep-1939 (taken from http://oldgazette.ru/pionerka/30091939/02-1.html). Do you see any difference?

The main difference is Warsaw and Lublin areas that Stalin proposed Germans to take over (to German's great surprise ). These two districts were practically completely populated by Poles. And officially Stalin did not want to split Poles because it could lead to tension between Germany and USSR in the future.

As you see the census issies were a vital part of the process.

Egorka
02-05-2007, 03:49 PM
Lexa:


As far as I know, there were no officially recognized borders and treaties between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919. Soviet Russia wasn't legal successor of Russian Empire. So, it's difficult to regard Polish campaign of 1919 as formal agression against Russia. But possibly Kiev campaign of Pilsudski was the main reason why Stalin later regarded Poland as enemy.


I am not prepared right now to discuss how legally relation between poland and Soviet Russia should be explained. I need to dig in to this one.

Regarding "formal aggression"... You know officially Vietnam war started because Vietnamese shelled an American ship. :shock:
USSR in 1939 claimed that Polish goverment collapsed and out of control. And they clamed that formally there is no aggression.

Formally or unformally, Polans was an agressive state in 1919. Why deny it?


Btw., many Russian people fought against bolsheviks on the Polish side. And frankly speaking, I don't know which side I'd prefer to join if I had to choose.
Yes, it is amatter of opinion. You might have supported Poles in 1919. Some others would not.
Some think it was not an Polish agression. Some other do think so.
Who knows there might be a chance that YOU are wrong in this case. Have you ever conciderd this option? ;)



Sure, we can and we must. You're right, Igor.

Remember also about other territorial gains by USSR in accordance with secret protocols to the M-R pact. They all can't be explained by earlier agressions of these countires or by care about some national groups.
Right, they can not be explained by previous aggression. They can be explained by will to collect the land lost during the collapse of the Russian Empier.
And, please, do not discuss other countries in this thread. We will get blown away.

Lexa
02-06-2007, 01:17 AM
Formally or unformally, Polans was an agressive state in 1919. Why deny it?


Yes, Poland invaded into lands which were not (mostly) populated by Poles, and finally captured some of these lands. Soviet Russia did the same - invaded lands that were not populated by ethnic Russians and captured them. So they were equally aggressive in this.



Who knows there might be a chance that YOU are wrong in this case. Have you ever conciderd this option?

Igor, I'm not very well educated in history, and I usually prefer to read historical forums rather than write on them. But as to Polish-Soviet history, I have some knowledge and some opinion. I've read various Russian and Polish texts, and I think that both Russian and Polish "patriotic" versions are logically inadequate.

But in this particular topic, I understand the Polish argumentation, and I don't understand yours, Igor. I admit you maybe right. I'd wish you were right :( Believe me, I'm not happy to blame my country. I'm sad. But let's try to reason.

When a country is invaded by enemies, it's always the consequence of its previous policy, previous wars and mistakes. The catastrophe of Poland in 1939 may be considered as a result of mistakes of the Polish policy, and its aggression in the past. As well as the catastrophe of USSR in 1941 is a result of mistakes of the Stalin policy, and of USSR's aggressiveness.

But despite it, we say that Germany was aggressor and bad guy when invaded USSR in 1941. In a similar way, USSR in 1939 was an aggressor and bad guy in 1939 (together with Germany). What's wrong with this logic?

Egorka
02-06-2007, 02:19 AM
Lexa:


So they were equally aggressive in this.
Thank you very much! That is what I have been saying.


But despite it, we say that Germany was aggressor and bad guy when invaded USSR in 1941. In a similar way, USSR in 1939 was an aggressor and bad guy in 1939 (together with Germany). What's wrong with this logic?
How many times do I have to state, that I am with you on this point?

German agression was of a different nature. It was mainly ethnicaly centered - something one can not change like a political view. Plus Hitler wanted to capture new land that geopoliticaly had nothing to do with Germany.

USSR was also agressive to its neighbours with that difference from Germany, that USSR wanted to return the areas it considered unjustfully lost.

Can we, please, stop being histerical now?

Egorka
02-06-2007, 03:53 AM
Here is the ethnographical map of Poland in 1939 taken from "Das politische Antlitz der Erde" by Walther Pahl, Leipzig, April 1939, page 62 (very interesting book with lots of diagrams that suppose to show that Germany needs to expand its living room).

Sorry for the wrong map oriantation... I do not know how to put a bigger picture in here...

deadkenny
02-06-2007, 02:19 PM
I have mention already the captiring the territories was not particalar doing of USSR till the WW2. There a lot of examples when the Western European state had the colonian war for the territories where the have zero majiority. In fact neither of Wester Ukrain and nor Belorussian didn't admit the polish power in they territories.Moreover till the 1939 those territories had a power anti-polish movenment ( like later anti-soviet).

Well, since the USSR didn't exist until after 1900, it missed most of the 'colonial wars'. Still I'm not sure how the conduct of the colonial powers relates to the the Soviet Union partitioning Poland in cooperation with Nazi Germany in 1939. Yes SOME of the territories in eastern Poland that were annexed by the Soviet Union had large Ukrainian or Belorussian populations. But then they didn't especially want to be part of the Soviet Union any more than they did Poland. Both Poland and the Soviet Union were fighting over the same territory. What they ended up with had more to do with the outcome of battle in 1920, and the treaty with Nazi Germany, than it did with any concern over the ethnic make-up of the population.



But this didn't stop the americans to capture the mexican states like Texas or captured the California. Moreover this was absolutly don't stop them to take a colonian war for Phillipines where perished a lot of native peoples.
Here is one problem in your point.
Its seems you forgot that the allies had the mutial agreements of borders after the WW2.
Those agreemeth give the USSR juridical right to join the Western Ukrain and Belorussia to the USSR. Both Churchill and Rosevelt even didn't dispute this point(Another matter was the qustion of polish gov on which allies had its own view).
Moreover regarding the Polish territories.
After the WW2 Poland according the Jalta and Potsdam agreements send to USSR about 177 000 square km of its eastern territories, but it got from the Germany about 100 000 square km ( Most of Eastern Prussia, part of Brandenburg land and Silesia). And all allies had were agreeable with.
Thus all sides including USA,Britain and France were responsiple for post-WW2 annextion of territories ( not only Poland but in all the Eastern Europe).
So claiming the USSR on annextions you have to agree to claim any othe allies agreements after WW2.

Again, not sure what the earlier wars fought by Americans against Mexico and Spain have to do with the conduct of the Soviet Union in 1939. True, the US and Britain gave in to the demands of the Soviet Union to keep both eastern Poland and the Baltic States. They did in fact try to negotiate a modified border for Poland, and Stalin did in fact agree to adjust the post-war border in favour of Poland (i.e. relative to the Nazi-Soviet partition line). However, the fact is that they Western powers were simply giving into a demand that they were not in a position to do much about anyway. But again, post-war negotiations would not seem to relate directly to what happened in 1939.



It's not correct.
The comunist regimes were established in answer to allies who create "democraties" in Italy , France and ets.
In fact there were the mostly pro-communist leader who commanded the resistance in western Europe.But allies simply ignored them as power after liberating. After WW2 the allies had formed "democratic" govenments which they wish without any objection from USSR. This was a common practice in WW2.
If you watch to the allies policy in the South Eastern asia( for instance in Birma). Where they had formed the "democratic" gov in spirit of colonian policy. The real national leaders which fight for independence of its states EVEN wasn't invited to the gvenment.
So i don't think it was a character matter of Stalin - to install the pro-soviet govn, He had a excellent teacher in faces of US-UK. ;)
Cheers.

What is not correct? My reference to communist regimes was regarding their philosophy in 1920, when they were driving on Warsaw - not to post-war Europe. I do not agree with your comments regarding post-war Europe, but again that is perhaps a topic for another thread. It doesn't relate to either the 1920 Russo-Polish War or the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact and joint partition of Poland.

Egorka
02-15-2007, 03:14 AM
One more article I found on the net. Read the text next to the picture.

Egorka
02-28-2007, 07:27 AM
One more map showing Ethnic map of Eastern Poland. It was developed by Sumner Welles who was Under Secretary of State in US (the #2 position) from 1937 to 1943.
Source page: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/osc07.html

Egorka
03-20-2007, 04:05 AM
Hello!

I am looking for the information about the fate of the people (Mostly poles, but and also Germans) affected by the definition of the present Polish state borders.

The main issue I want to learn about is what happened to Poles that were left on the Estern territories (Kresy) after 1945. Were they allowed to relocate to the West of Bug and San rivers after the new Polands borders were agreed?

Was there any relocation of Poles during the German occupation?

I hope the our polish members can contribute as they have access to the polish sources of information.

Thanks!

Egorka
03-27-2007, 02:38 AM
Any one? Any Pole here who knows how people were relocated?

Chevan
03-27-2007, 04:09 AM
Any one? Any Pole here who knows how people were relocated?
Don't worry mate , I/m sure somebody of our polis friend know something about.

Kovalski
03-27-2007, 04:44 AM
I've found a good article, but need to translate it.
I'll try by tomorrow.

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Kovalski
03-28-2007, 04:17 AM
The deportation of Poles living in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine started in late 1944 on the strength of the agreement signed by polish communist government and authorities of Lithuanian, Belorussian and Ukrainian soviet republics.
Generally it lasted till 1947.
Both sides agreed to create the lists of candidates for deportation.

Lithuania:
Registered: 383,135
Deported: 197,156

Ukraine
Registered: 854,809
Deported: 772,564

Belarus
Registered: 535,284
Deported: about 150,000

The whole process of deportation took place in extremely difficult circumstances of last month of war and first years of peace. Both sides suffered huge war damage, social life was in rebirth stage, administrational and economical systems were ineffectual. The transport, communication and food supply were subordinated to the war machine, so the deportation of that scale faced many difficulties, what caused a lot of suffering and death to the deported.

The deportations had two faces. From the one side soviet republics wanted to get rid of Poles living on their territories. That why Poles became a victims of harassment and violence.
From the other side the soviet authorities wanted to prevent from leaving rural population. It was the reason for putting pressure
on polish side to finish the deportations.
About 654,000 of Poles were left behind (cannot confirm this number right now).

The tragic situation was intensified by the atmosphere among the Poles.
From the one side they wanted to leave the areas occupied by the soviets, from the other side they didn't want to leave their houses, property and homelands.


There may be some mistakes in numbers of deported. I will verify them later.
This post is based on a website: http://www.sciesielski.republika.pl

Kovalski
03-28-2007, 07:42 AM
This is the reply for Chevan's post from http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3795&page=8



So why the referendum means the lands of Silesia but not the East Prussia?
May be the East Prussia was considered as polish on definition ;)


East Prussia on the strength of Potsdam Conference was divided between Poland and USSR.

Egorka
03-28-2007, 08:36 AM
Kovalski,

Have you read the report about the victims of the Soviet repressions on the Karta project website? The one mentioned in the thread about the deportation in 1939-1941.

Can it be trusted in your opinion? Do you agree with the numbers (320.000 deported out of 570.387 in total) ?

Kovalski
03-28-2007, 09:02 AM
Kovalski,

Have you read the report about the victims of the Soviet repressions on the Karta project website? The one mentioned in the thread about the deportation in 1939-1941.

Can it be trusted in your opinion? Do you agree with the numbers (320.000 deported out of 570.387 in total) ?


Unfortunately, I haven't have time yet to read the report.
But "Karta" has a opinion of realiable institute, they conduct really precise research. So I have no reason to disagree with them. Especially when prof. Władysław Bartoszewski and prof. Andrzej Paczkowski are the members of institute's council.

Egorka
03-28-2007, 05:55 PM
Unfortunately, I haven't have time yet to read the report.
But "Karta" has a opinion of realiable institute, they conduct really precise research. So I have no reason to disagree with them. Especially when prof. Władysław Bartoszewski and prof. Andrzej Paczkowski are the members of institute's council.

I would assume for now that you accept the information from the Karta report.
Then looking at the numbers you mentioned above I got this adea. The Polish population of Kresy (eastern Poland) was app. 5.2 mil out of app. 10.5 mil before 1939.

If the data for deported it right (i.e. app. 320.000), and there were only 1.773.000 registered in Belorussia, Ukrain and Litvonia according to your previous post, does it mean we can say

5.200.000 - 320.000 - 1.773.000 = ~3.100.000 Poles
fell victim of the German occupation and the Ukrainian-Polish conflict?

Polar
03-29-2007, 12:56 AM
Egorka this is not that simple becuse if you want be on lists of candidates for resettlement you must prove polish nacionality. (you must have any documents what prove yours nationality) In cites this wasn't problem but on village areas this was problem. Many peoples don't have any documents and can't will be on list. For example in register on Belarus was 535,284 people but the number of Poles was about 700.000


fell victim of the German occupation and the Ukrainian-Polish conflict?
I don't have any info how many Poles was victims german ocupation on former "Kresy Wschodnie" but victims Ukrainian-Polish conflict is estimate about 200.000 Poles

Egorka
03-30-2007, 01:44 AM
Egorka this is not that simple becuse if you want be on lists of candidates for resettlement you must prove polish nacionality. (you must have any documents what prove yours nationality) In cites this wasn't problem but on village areas this was problem. Many peoples don't have any documents and can't will be on list. For example in register on Belarus was 535,284 people but the number of Poles was about 700.000


I don't have any info how many Poles was victims german ocupation on former "Kresy Wschodnie" but victims Ukrainian-Polish conflict is estimate about 200.000 Poles

Hi,

Why did not they have documents? They had them before the war, right?

And even if we take 30% error margin on top of the number provided by Kovalski and substruct the victims of Polish-Ukrainian conflict, it would leave us with app. 2.500.000 people unaccounted. That is a very large numeber.

Any ideas?

Polar
03-30-2007, 12:36 PM
Well
About 300.000 was join to Berling's Army and eskped by front summer 1944.
Some of Polish living on estern borders was eskaped after 17.IX.1939 to teritory ocupied by germans. Some was in polish forces on West

Polar
03-30-2007, 01:46 PM
Why did not they have documents? They had them before the war, right?


Yes, they could not have any document's before war or If they have they could lost during escape by pacification doing by UPA or German.

Egorka
03-30-2007, 04:11 PM
Yes, they could not have any document's before war or If they have they could lost during escape by pacification doing by UPA or German.

Why could not htey have documents? Everyone gets a birth sertificate, at least.
This seem to me very unlikely that they has no papers before the war.

Loosing papers is much more likely in those troublesome times, I agree.


Some of Polish living on estern borders was eskaped after 17.IX.1939 to teritory ocupied by germans.
According to the agreement between Germany and USSR the Polish refugees were not allowed and were prevented from crossing the border line. Those who managed to cross the border and was spotted were relocated to the territories they originaly came from.

Chevan
03-31-2007, 12:27 PM
One more map showing Ethnic map of Eastern Poland. It was developed by Sumner Welles who was Under Secretary of State in US (the #2 position) from 1937 to 1943.
Source page: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/osc07.html
Thanks Egorka, tha's extremally interesting maps.
So according to the Welles the so called "Eastern Polish territories" had much less the poles then the ukrainians, belorussian and russians ;)
Why? :D

Cheers.

Polar
03-31-2007, 04:59 PM
Here is the new German-USSR border as it was agreed in August 1939.
This is a map from "Pravda" newspaper on 27-Sep-1939. Taken from site: http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/historia.htm

http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/granica.jpg

And below is the final border from 28-Sep-1939 (taken from http://oldgazette.ru/pionerka/30091939/02-1.html). Do you see any difference?

The main difference is Warsaw and Lublin areas that Stalin proposed Germans to take over (to German's great surprise ). These two districts were practically completely populated by Poles. And officially Stalin did not want to split Poles because it could lead to tension between Germany and USSR in the future.

As you see the census issies were a vital part of the process.

This post is manipuleted.
Why ?
The German's wasn't surprise. They agree give to USRR on sphere of influence Lithuania and Vilnius area for Warsaw and Lublin areas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg

Polar
03-31-2007, 05:20 PM
As far as I know, there were no officially recognized borders and treaties between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919. Soviet Russia wasn't legal successor of Russian Empire. So, it's difficult to regard Polish campaign of 1919 as formal agression against Russia. But possibly Kiev campaign of Pilsudski was the main reason why Stalin later regarded Poland as enemy.

Btw., many Russian people fought against bolsheviks on the Polish side. And frankly speaking, I don't know which side I'd prefer to join if I had to choose.


Sure, we can and we must. You're right, Igor.

Remember also about other territorial gains by USSR in accordance with secret protocols to the M-R pact. They all can't be explained by earlier agressions of these countires or by care about some national groups.

Good point
For me:
As far as I know, some Soviet or Russian historic speak that Polish Soviet war was started in april 1919 as "Kiev campaign of Pilsudski" but war was started in january 1919. Did they don't know anything about fight betwenn january and april? Or they want show Polish as agressor?

Chevan
04-01-2007, 06:43 AM
As far as I know, some Soviet or Russian historic speak that Polish Soviet war was started in april 1919 as "Kiev campaign of Pilsudski" but war was started in january 1919. Did they don't know anything about fight betwenn january and april? Or they want show Polish as agressor?
Sorry Polar but not just Soviet and Russian but also Ukrain and Belorussian historians.
Let's look to the chronology


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_% D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0_1919%E2%80%941921_%D 0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2
On 17 December 1918 - the Red Army took Dvinsk (Daugavpils) and continued motion into the depths of the Lithuanian and Belorussian territories.
On 1 January 1919 - after withdrawal from Vil'ny of German army the local formations of Polish self-defence took control over the city, but on 5 January 1919 Vilnius were with the battle undertaken by the parts OF RKKA . Memel edge was isolated from Germany and occupied by Frenchmen. Lithuanians sent for the achievement of Klaipeda of 1500 soldiers. Lithuanian army resisted 200 Frenchmen, combat for the city dispatch five days, and in the course of assault perished 12 Lithuanians, two Frenchmen even one German policeman. Soviet Russia, which demonstratively advanced friendly forces to the boundary.
During March Poles attacked in Soviet Russia and crossed Neman river.
On 4 April 1919 - Poles occupy Kovel.
On 9 February 1919 - Poles occupy Brest.
07.1919 to Poland arrived the 70- thousandth Polish army, created in France and formed to a considerable degree of the Americans of Polish origin.
19 - on 21 April 1919 - Polish troops again occupy Vilnius.
On 8 August 1919 - Polish troops occupy Minsk.
On 29 August 1919 - Polish troops seize Bobruysk. The front during December of 1920 - England, France, USA supply to Poland 1494 instruments, 2800 machine guns, about 700 aircraft, 10 million projectiles.
25 April 1920 - after concluding union with Semen Petlura ( ukrainian nationalists leader ), Polish army together with the his armed forces attacked in Russia, being going to include the Ukraine and Lithuania in its composition, at the broad front from the Pripet to the Dniester.
On 7 May 1920 - Polish and Petlura's troops occupy Kiev. the offensive of Polish troops is accompanied by Jewish pogroms and mass shootings: in Rovno the occupiers shot more than 3 thousand innocent civilians, into the place Tetiyevo is killed about 4 thousand Jews, are completely burnt village Ivanovo residents, Kycha, Sobachi, Yablunovka, New Rowing, Mel'nichi, Kirillovka, etc., their inhabitants were shot to death

Oh the jews were victims again. What for ? :D
Certainly the both sides made atrosities above civil population.
But the ethnic cleaning were the worst.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Bij_Bolszewika.jpg/200px-Bij_Bolszewika.jpghttp://www.wf.weltkrieg.ru/post/ger/foto/022b.jpg
Look to the polish (1919) and nazi ( 1941) propogandic posters.
The times are different the bolshevics faces are the simular.;)

Well if serious i think the Polish -Soviet war of 1919-1920 was the tupical agressian war for the territories of independent states Belorussia and Ukraine.
Both polish and soviet sides had ONLY imperial interests.
The majiority of Ukrain population was against polish occupation in 1919. This reason IMO was the first why the poles was forced to retreat. ( equally like and the why the Red army was crashed near the Warsaw year later - the majiority of native (polish) population considered them as invaders).
The Ukrainian hate to the poles was dramatically showed later when during the German occupation of Ukraine the UPA nationalist accomplished the atrocities agains the civil polish population in the territories of western Ukraine.


Cheers.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2007, 10:16 AM
It wasn't justified under any circumstance other than local plebiscite...

Egorka
04-01-2007, 05:57 PM
This post is manipuleted.
Why ?
Polar,

Do you want to know why I edited the post after I wrote it? If this is your question ,then I can tell you that I correct some times my misspellings when I notice them.


The German's wasn't surprise. They agree give to USRR on sphere of influence Lithuania and Vilnius area for Warsaw and Lublin areas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg

Regarding surprise, I can not say if it was great or just moderate. Lets say that it was unexpected for Germany, that Stalin would give up those territories including Warsaw.

Here are some quotes:


from the book "The secrets of Stalin's diplomacy, 1939-1941" by Mihail Simiriaga, 1992. In russian here: http://militera.lib.ru/research/semiryaga1/index.html

First trough Schulenburg and later during the talks on 28th of September Stalin showed his negative attitude to "Polish rump state". He declared that dismemberment of the areas with predominantly Polish population will inevitably evoke its national awareness (as it is seen from the history). This can lead to tensions between Germany and USSR. Therefore Stalin was ready to give up the populated by Poles Lublin and right bank Warsaw province "in exchange" for Lithuania.

The following quotes are the telegrams exchanged by SCHULENBURG, the German ambassador in USSR, with Ribbentrop in Berlin.
From this address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm#III




Telegram
STRICTLY SECRET
Moscow, September 20, 1939-2:23 a. m.
Received September 20, 1939-4:55 a. m.
No. 395 of September 19

Molotov stated to me today that the Soviet Government now considered the time ripe for it, jointly with the German Government, to establish definitively the structure of the Polish area. In this regard, Molotov hinted that the original inclination entertained by the Soviet Government and Stalin personally to permit the existence of a residual Poland had given way to the inclination to partition Poland along the Pissa-Narew-Vistula-San Line. The Soviet Government wishes to commence negotiations on this matter at once, and to conduct them in Moscow, since such negotiations must be conducted on the Soviet side by persons in the highest positions of authority, who cannot leave the Soviet Union. Request telegraphic instructions.

SCHULENBURG (the German ambassador in USSR)




Telegram
STRICTLY SECRET
BERLIN September 23, 1939-3:40 a. m.
Received Moscow September 23, 1939-11:05 a. m.
No. 417 of September 22
Reference your telegram No. 295 [395?].

For the Ambassador personally.

We, too, consider the time now ripe to establish by treaty jointly with the Soviet Government the definitive structure of the Polish area. The Russian idea of a border line along the well-known Four-Rivers Line coincides in general with the view of the Reich Government. It was my original intention to invite Herr Molotov to Germany in order to formulate this treaty. In view of your report that the leading personages there cannot leave the Soviet Union, we agree to negotiations in Moscow. Contrary to my original purpose of entrusting you with these negotiations, I have decided to fly to Moscow myself. This particularly because in view of the full powers granted me by the Führer, thus making it possible to dispense with counter-inquiries, etc. negotiations can be brought to a speedier conclusion. In view of the general situation, my sojourn in Moscow will have to be limited to one or two days at the most. Please call on Herren Stalin and Molotov and wire me earliest proposed date.



Telegram
VERY URGENT
Moscow, September 25, 1939-10:58 p. m.
Received September 26, 1939-12:30 a. m.
STRICTLY SECRET
No. 442 of September 25

Stalin and Molotov asked me to come to the Kremlin at 8 p. m. today. Stalin stated the following: In the final settlement of the Polish question anything that in the future might create friction between Germany and the Soviet Union must be avoided. From this point of view, he considered it wrong to leave an independent Polish rump state. He proposed the following: From the territory to the east of the demarcation line, all the Province of Lublin and that portion of the Province of Warsaw which extends to the Bug should be added to our share. In return, we should waive our claim to Lithuania.

Stalin designated this suggestion as a subject for the forthcoming negotiations with the Reich Foreign Minister and added that, if we consented, the Soviet Union would immediately take up the solution of the problem of the Baltic countries in accordance with the Protocol of August 23, and expected in this matter the unstinting support of the German Government. Stalin expressly indicated Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but did not mention Finland.

I replied to Stalin that I would report to my Government.

SCHULENBURG

I marked with bold how the question of moving borders appeared.

So my point with that post was that the question of nationalities was part of the equation in 1939.

Regarding the the question whose agression it was in 1919... well do you know how far Kiev was from the Polish border in 1919? I can help you: app. 500 km.

Polar, as you have seen I provided quite few documents here about the population of there territories in the 1930th. Can you find any data about how many Poles were living there before 1917?
Can you maybe assist me in finding how many foresters (osadniki) were settled in the eastern territories in the 1920th and 1930th?
Were there any other Polish settlements programs for Polonisation of the Kresy? If yes, how big were they?

I hope you can dig some number out.

Cojimar 1945
04-01-2007, 09:27 PM
What happened to Germany seems tragic especially the losses of the eastern territories. Even more unfortunate is that they brought it on themselves for no reason. However, in the scheme of things territorial borders are of little significance. I think the eradication of different species by humans during that time were far worse than any changing of boundaries.

Chevan
04-01-2007, 11:34 PM
It wasn't justified under any circumstance other than local plebiscite...
That's right Nick.
Neither Polish nor Bolshevic agression wasn't justified by any reason.But unfortinatelly this is pure idealism and demagogy. And you know it better than me coz you live in the "world-police state";)

Cheers.

Chevan
04-02-2007, 12:38 AM
The following quotes are the telegrams exchanged by SCHULENBURG, the German ambassador in USSR, with Ribbentrop in Berlin.
From this address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm#III

I marked with bold how the question of moving borders appeared.

So my point with that post was that the question of nationalities was part of the equation in 1939.

Excellent source mate, thanks.
So we might to conclude the "division of Poland" in 1939 was executed with precision ethnic rules ( as exactly as it was possible). The polish population in the western Ukraine and Belorussia was still minority despite of active polonisation since 1921-1939 of that's areas.
In fact the western ukrainians nationalists had the pertisan war against poles till the 1939 and during the german occupation( simulary as they fought against soviets troops after 1945).
So to call those lands as Polish is a big mistake IMO. Not becouse i wish to insult our polish friends, but the desires of Ukrains we need to count up too ;)
The simple fact that 1939 eastern polish border is still actual and all sides consider it as legitime and not controversial that is really is important today.

Cheers.

Polar
04-02-2007, 02:43 AM
Justified:
[INDENT][LIST]

Geopolitically the area belonged to Russian empire and Russian (in it's original term that includes nowadays Ukrainians, Belo-Russians and Russians)
.
Not all.
When Lviv area ( in Polish this lands was name Galicja Wschodnia) was part of Russian empire before 17. IX.1939 ?
Answer - Never
Before ww1 this land was part of Austro-Hungary empire. Befor 1772 ( The First Partition of Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland ) this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939



USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Well, This is not any argument. Poland was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost after Partitions of Poland in XVIII century. Egorka You questioned Polish right to this land give as justified this same type of argument.
When Russain have historical argument is good.
When Poland have historical argument is bed.

Chevan
04-02-2007, 04:03 AM
Not all.
When Lviv area ( in Polish this lands was name Galicja Wschodnia) was part of Russian empire before 17. IX.1939 ?
Answer - Never
Before ww1 this land was part of Austro-Hungary empire. Befor 1772 ( The First Partition of Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland ) this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939


Well, This is not any argument. Poland was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost after Partitions of Poland in XVIII century. Egorka You questioned Polish right to this land give as justified this same type of argument.
When Russain have historical argument is good.
When Poland have historical argument is bed.
Well Polar just dont misunderstand us.
Thanks for the infor about former Austo-Hungarian lands.But i think we would not touch the wars of 100-200 year old. This is noncense IMO, becouse in this way the practicaly all European borders could be criticized;). For inctance from this point the whole British Impire was unlegitime.;)
I have to agree with you the claims of Bolshevics are not better then the claims of Poland
But .... here we have the one little difference.
In the 1919 the Poland left those territories 150 years ago and as it was showed in sources above the polish population was absolute minority.The Russian Impare crashed just two years ago -therefore the majiority of peoples choused to joine to the new Soviet Repablic. Indeed the majiority of Ukrainas and White Russian prefered to join to the Red Army ( instead of Polish Army) - therefore it was inevitable resault - the poles losed occuped former Russian Impere territories.


Cheers.

Polar
04-02-2007, 04:58 AM
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%...B4%D0%BE%D0%B2
On 17 December 1918 - the Red Army took Dvinsk (Daugavpils) and continued motion into the depths of the Lithuanian and Belorussian territories.
On 1 January 1919 - after withdrawal from Vil'ny of German army the local formations of Polish self-defence took control over the city, but on 5 January 1919 Vilnius were with the battle undertaken by the parts OF RKKA . Memel edge was isolated from Germany and occupied by Frenchmen. Lithuanians sent for the achievement of Klaipeda of 1500 soldiers. Lithuanian army resisted 200 Frenchmen, combat for the city dispatch five days, and in the course of assault perished 12 Lithuanians, two Frenchmen even one German policeman. Soviet Russia, which demonstratively advanced friendly forces to the boundary.
During March Poles attacked in Soviet Russia and crossed Neman river.
On 4 April 1919 - Poles occupy Kovel.
On 9 February 1919 - Poles occupy Brest.
07.1919 to Poland arrived the 70- thousandth Polish army, created in France and formed to a considerable degree of the Americans of Polish origin.
19 - on 21 April 1919 - Polish troops again occupy Vilnius.
On 8 August 1919 - Polish troops occupy Minsk.
On 29 August 1919 - Polish troops seize Bobruysk. The front during December of 1920 - England, France, USA supply to Poland 1494 instruments, 2800 machine guns, about 700 aircraft, 10 million projectiles.
25 April 1920 - after concluding union with Semen Petlura ( ukrainian nationalists leader ), Polish army together with the his armed forces attacked in Russia, being going to include the Ukraine and Lithuania in its composition, at the broad front from the Pripet to the Dniester.
On 7 May 1920 - Polish and Petlura's troops occupy Kiev. the offensive of Polish troops is accompanied by Jewish pogroms and mass shootings: in Rovno the occupiers shot more than 3 thousand innocent civilians, into the place Tetiyevo is killed about 4 thousand Jews, are completely burnt village Ivanovo residents, Kycha, Sobachi, Yablunovka, New Rowing, Mel'nichi, Kirillovka, etc., their inhabitants were shot to death


Interesting calender but have few "mistake" and some date was ignore in this calender. Reson this "mistake" or ingnore few date is for me obvious. Author this calender want show Polish as agressor.

Why in this calender don't have date 18 november 1918 or 12 january 1919 ?



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War_in_1919
On November 16 Bolsheviks formed the Western Army. On November 18, 1918, Vladimir Lenin issued orders to the Red Army to begin an operation, codenamed in some sources as Target Vistula. The basic aim of the operation was to drive through eastern and central Europe, institute Soviet governments in the newly independent countries of that region and support communist revolutions in Germany and Austria-Hungary.

...On January 12 Soviet High Command declared the goal of Target Vistula operation: deep scouting towards Neman River. On February 12 that goal was updated to Western Bug river.


Polish troops occupy all cities from this calender even this where Poles were majority ( interesting point of view )

Polish troops in Vilno are name as "the local formations of Polish self-defence" and is this true but in this time most Polish troops have local and self-defence character. Reson why did have local and self-defence character was that Poland was newbor after 126 years 2 months ago.
And for me the best:


December of 1920 - England, France, USA supply to Poland 1494 instruments, 2800 machine guns, about 700 aircraft, 10 million projectiles. Yes, Poland buy weapons from England, France and USA.
During 1918-1920 Poland was bought:
From France 291
From UK 139 planes
From Italy 132 planes
From Germany 132
From Austria 38
This was 732 planes delivered by 2 years not one month.
About half planes what was delivered was from demobil and was in fatal condition. The part of planes was delivered after Polish Soviet war

Chevan
04-02-2007, 05:41 AM
Well Polar. Yes you right the my source is not full.
Idon't think the goal of author was to show the Poles as agressors.
This is right way to find the mistakes and innacuracies.
OK let's look to the your source.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War_in_1919
On November 16 Bolsheviks formed the Western Army. On November 18, 1918, Vladimir Lenin issued orders to the Red Army to begin an operation, codenamed in some sources as Target Vistula. The basic aim of the operation was to drive through eastern and central Europe, institute Soviet governments in the newly independent countries of that region and support communist revolutions in Germany and Austria-Hungary.

...On January 12 Soviet High Command declared the goal of Target Vistula operation: deep scouting towards Neman River. On February 12 that goal was updated to Western Bug river.

Firstly in the 1918 there were no aims or orders to "target Vestula" Becouse ... in the 1918 the bolshevic yet did not exactly know could they to hold the power inside the Russia.
The idea to "Expropriate the Revolution" appeared in the 1919 after the sucsessfull offencive the Tuhachevsky in the Ukraine.
To plan the offencive if you don't take the power inside the state- this is pure siucide. Theoretically the bolshevics were sure the World Proletarian Revolution was "inevitable" but they were not so stupid to take it LITERALY in the 1918.
Secondary this was idea not Lenin but Leon Trotsky-Bernstain who factically commanded of Red Army in this time.
So as you could to see this "source" is also coulde be presented as attemp to show the "agression side" was ONLY the Red Army.

Cheers.

Polar
04-02-2007, 05:45 AM
Well Polar just dont misunderstand us.
Thanks for the infor about former Austo-Hungarian lands.But i think we would not touch the wars of 100-200 year old. This is noncense IMO, becouse in this way the practicaly all European borders could be criticized;). For inctance from this point the whole British Impire was unlegitime.;)
I have to agree with you the claims of Bolshevics are not better then the claims of Poland
But .... here we have the one little difference.
In the 1919 the Poland left those territories 150 years ago and as it was showed in sources above the polish population was absolute minority.The Russian Impare crashed just two years ago -therefore the majiority of peoples choused to joine to the new Soviet Repablic. Indeed the majiority of Ukrainas and White Russian prefered to join to the Red Army ( instead of Polish Army) - therefore it was inevitable resault - the poles losed occuped former Russian Impere territories.


Cheers.

You don't understand my post Chevan. My criticism was against this word :
"USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire" as justified annexation former polish east terytory in 1939.
This is historical argument annextion. For me is not any argument, because Soviet Union acepted peace treaty with Poland in 1921.


The Russian Impare crashed just two years ago -therefore the majiority of peoples choused to joine to the new Soviet Repablic..
Sorry but I don't think that was two years between 1917 - 1939.

Sorry Chevan I'm not criticized borders but argument what Egorka wrot as justifice annextion polish former east lands.


All me post was aginst two "hictorical" arguments what Egorka use as justified annexation former polish east terytory in 1939.

Sorry Chevan for yours up post is for me obvius that you think this schema:
When Russain have historical argument is good.
When Poland have historical argument is bed.

For me
Historical argument are not any arguments to prove rights to lands any nation.
Ethnic - yes.

Polar
04-02-2007, 06:14 AM
Well Polar. Yes you right the my source is not full.
Idon't think the goal of author was to show the Poles as agressors.
This is right way to find the mistakes and innacuracies.
OK let's look to the your source.

Firstly in the 1918 there were no aims or orders to "target Vestula" Becouse ... in the 1918 the bolshevic yet did not exactly know could they to hold the power inside the Russia.
The idea to "Expropriate the Revolution" appeared in the 1919 after the sucsessfull offencive the Tuhachevsky in the Ukraine.
To plan the offencive if you don't take the power inside the state- this is pure siucide. Theoretically the bolshevics were sure the World Proletarian Revolution was "inevitable" but they were not so stupid to take it LITERALY in the 1918.
Secondary this was idea not Lenin but Leon Trotsky-Bernstain who factically commanded of Red Army in this time.
So as you could to see this "source" is also coulde be presented as attemp to show the "agression side" was ONLY the Red Army.

Cheers.
Chevan,
The main goal of the "operation Vistula" was to see how much territory can be captured in the chaotic after withdraw German's, before Red Army meet any serious opposition.
Polish Army have this same main goal, but they marsh on east. :)

Look this source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Vistula
and tell me did this point of view is accepted for you

Polar
04-02-2007, 06:35 AM
Polar,

Can you find any data about how many Poles were living there before 1917?

I think that Russian archive are better to find data.



Can you maybe assist me in finding how many foresters (osadniki) were settled in the eastern territories in the 1920th and 1930th?
Were there any other Polish settlements programs for Polonisation of the Kresy? If yes, how big were they?
Did you see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osadnik ?
I heard about action doing by private person like Zamoyski familly but how big were they I don't know.

Egorka
04-02-2007, 06:50 AM
to Polar:

Polar, my dear friend! I just want to ask you: Have you read this thread from the begining? If not, you should! So that you may better understand my position.

And now answer for you questions:

Not all.
When Lviv area ( in Polish this lands was name Galicja Wschodnia) was part of Russian empire before 17. IX.1939 ?
Answer - Never
Before ww1 this land was part of Austro-Hungary empire. Befor 1772 ( The First Partition of Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland ) this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939
Polar they did not have to be 100% correct. There was a negotiation with Germans about the border and as you know it was moved during the talks.

The area you reffered to is one most Polish of them all. I agree. Though it was before 1100 AD in the domain of Lord of Kiev. I know it is long time ago and alone means nothing, but to say it does not mater at all is wrong too. Here is the map: http://www.staypoland.com/history-map.htm

When you say "this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939" I hope you do not want to extend your statement on Kiev and Moscow. Right? Because in the course of the history they were occupied by Poles. Or should we hand it back to Poland? ;)



Sorry Chevan I'm not criticized borders but argument what Egorka wrot as justifice annextion polish former east lands.

I guess you did not read all the post from the beginning of the thread, else you would not write this.

I made a mistake by using english word "justify", I should have used "explain" instead.



All me post was aginst two "hictorical" arguments what Egorka use as justified annexation former polish east terytory in 1939.

Sorry Chevan for yours up post is for me obvius that you think this schema:
When Russain have historical argument is good.
When Poland have historical argument is bed.

Well you did not chalenge the validity of these 2 arguments. I do undertand that you might not like them or disagree with them. But you did not show that they make no sence at all.

They do make sence from a russian point of view. Just like other ones make sence from a Polish point of view. EITHER way it is not objective!



For me
Historical argument are not any arguments to prove rights to lands any nation.
Ethnic - yes.

Does it mean you actually share the view that the eastern Poland was rightfuly joint to USSR becasue Poles were manority even after extensive polonisation campains?

Polar
04-02-2007, 07:01 AM
Why could not htey have documents? Everyone gets a birth sertificate, at least.
This seem to me very unlikely that they has no papers before the war.


Yes nowdays all peoples in Poland when born have a birth sertificate with confirm nationality, but I don't know did this document was in "popular" use about 100 years ago ? Did you know this? If they have this document it could be few types(Tzar Russia, Austro-Hungary or Polish). Question is did all type documents confirmed nationlity- I don't know it. And you?
I look to my familliar archive documents and last birth sertificate was from 1952 and belong to my father. But I have baptism sertificate who belong to my grand-grand father and they not confirmed nationlity. Mayby this type documents was in "popular" use about 100 years ago.



According to the agreement between Germany and USSR the Polish refugees were not allowed and were prevented from crossing the border line. Those who managed to cross the border and was spotted were relocated to the territories they originaly came from.
Not at all :)
I know all familly whta wasn't relocated.

Egorka
04-02-2007, 07:44 AM
I think that Russian archive are better to find data.


Did you see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osadnik ?
I heard about action doing by private person like Zamoyski familly but how big were they I don't know.

You do not need to go that far as to the russian archives. Googling helps too.
Here is the 2 maps (they are more 2 versions of the same map) developed by the Czech archeologist, anthropologist and ethnographer professor Lubor Niederle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubor_Niederle) in the beginning of the XXth century. They appeared in the book "Slavic Antiquities" (Slovanské starožitnosti).

#1: http://www.belarusguide.com/as/map_text/etn19-20.html
#2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Ethnographic_map_of_Slavs%2C_Lubor_Niederle.JPG


There is also a book "Geograficzno-Statystyczny Atlas Polski" by Dr. Eugenjusz Romer, published in Lwow in 1921. Very good book! Here is the link to the book scans: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/index.php
Look particulary at this one: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

Polar, thanks for the link to info about Osadnik. I did look in the Wiki for it. Stupid me! :)

Chevan
04-02-2007, 07:57 AM
You don't understand my post Chevan. My criticism was against this word :
"USSR was geopolitically focused on collecting the land it lost with the collapse of the Russian Empire" as justified annexation former polish east terytory in 1939.
Well sorry i mean the period 1919-1920 and not the western Ukranian territories but the entire Ukrain.


This is historical argument annextion. For me is not any argument, because Soviet Union acepted peace treaty with Poland in 1921.

Dear Polar my point is not the justify the "Polish eastern" territories. It seem we have to conclude those lands were not polish and not the Russian. This was the lands of Ukrain and Belorussia ( which at that moment was part of USSR).
I'm not justiry the 1939-annexions, i just know those territories were captured by the Poland right after the collapse of Russian Impire. The ethnic population of those lands were far from the polish.


Sorry but I don't think that was two years between 1917 - 1939.
I mean 1919 ;)


Sorry Chevan I'm not criticized borders but argument what Egorka wrot as justifice annextion polish former east lands.


All me post was aginst two "hictorical" arguments what Egorka use as justified annexation former polish east terytory in 1939.

Sorry Chevan for yours up post is for me obvius that you think this schema:
When Russain have historical argument is good.
When Poland have historical argument is bed.

Oh again. I/m tied to repeat for you i/m not think that the arguments was bed or good.
Tis is not importaint. The more importaint that today the BORDERS which was established in 1939 ARE not controversal for every side. So i don't see the reason to call it as "polish eastern" territories becouse poles HAD no more right for it then the Bolshevicks in 1939.


For me
Historical argument are not any arguments to prove rights to lands any nation.
Ethnic - yes.
That's right i/m totaly agree, at the end;)

Polar
04-02-2007, 08:16 AM
My question was: When Lviv area ( in Polish this lands was name Galicja Wschodnia) was part of Russian empire before 17. IX.1939 ?
and my answer was correct. Off course if you look on history you find that Russia was occuped short time Lviv and this areas before 17. IX.1939 , but I can tell you that was this same as Polish occupied Moscow in XVII century :)


When you say "this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939" I hope you do not want to extend your statement on Kiev and Moscow. Right? Because in the course of the history they were occupied by Poles. Or should we hand it back to Poland?
No off cours no. I have in my mind only terretories annexed by USRR in 1939.



Sorry Chevan I'm not criticized borders but argument what Egorka wrot as justifice annextion polish former east lands.

I guess you did not read all the post from the beginning of the thread, else you would not write this.

I made a mistake by using english word "justify", I should have used "explain" instead.
Sorry I missed this post, but this not changed my opinion about "historical arguments" but if you think that did you agree with this same type arguments explain why Poland want take controll of the land on East in 1919. Poland was newborn after 123 and want to have all lands what belonged to her before partitios of Poland in XVIII c.


Well you did not chalenge the validity of these 2 arguments. I do undertand that you might not like them or disagree with them. But you did not show that they make no sence at all.

Relly
Look this (bold by me)



When you say "this was land belonged to Polish Kingdom as others subject lands what was annextion by Soviet Union in 1939" I hope you do not want to extend your statement on Kiev and Moscow. Right? Because in the course of the history they were occupied by Poles. Or should we hand it back to Poland? .
If you give sence "historical arguments" you can find person who answer for you question YES.



For me
Historical argument are not any arguments to prove rights to lands any nation.
Ethnic - yes.

[Quote]Does it mean you actually share the view that the eastern Poland was rightfuly joint to USSR becasue Poles were manority even after extensive polonisation campains?
No, because USRR acepted Treaty of Riga in 1921, and acepted this borders.
Don't forget that this annexation was prepered with Germany and was braek
Polish USRR non-agression pact.

Egorka
04-02-2007, 08:26 AM
Yes nowdays all peoples in Poland when born have a birth sertificate with confirm nationality, but I don't know did this document was in "popular" use about 100 years ago ? Did you know this? If they have this document it could be few types(Tzar Russia, Austro-Hungary or Polish). Question is did all type documents confirmed nationlity- I don't know it. And you?
I look to my familliar archive documents and last birth sertificate was from 1952 and belong to my father. But I have baptism sertificate who belong to my grand-grand father and they not confirmed nationlity. Mayby this type documents was in "popular" use about 100 years ago.

Birth sertificate was practicaly a must, as I know. In my family archive I have birth sertificate of several of my grand-grand parants. People could lack passport but not birth sertificate. Unless it was lost in a fire or something.
And I am sure there is nationality (for safety sake I will check tonight). And common, if your farthers surname is Pilsudsky you are not a White Russian! :D
And also in the 1930th every Polish baby must had goten a birth sertificate. No?



Not at all :)
I know all familly whta wasn't relocated.
I agree, my statement sounds a bit unflexible. And I rushed this one a bit.
That is right some people could move across, but not all who wanted. For example when Red Army had to leave after the final borderr was agreed all who wished could move to USSR (there were up to 100.000 of those). So I guess some movement was possible.
But I also know some people were extradicted to Germany and viseversa to USSR though they wanted to otherwise. I will try to check it.

Egorka
04-02-2007, 08:33 AM
Does it mean you actually share the view that the eastern Poland was rightfuly joint to USSR becasue Poles were manority even after extensive polonisation campains?
No, because USRR acepted Treaty of Riga in 1921, and acepted this borders.
Don't forget that this annexation was prepered with Germany and was braek
Polish USRR non-agression pact.

But you said "Ethnic - yes". So in your mind these lands, except Lviv, are not ethnicaly Polish and therefore should not belong to Poland. Do I understand it correctly? ;)

P.S: Have you looked at these to books I mentioned in post #46 about Polish ethinical domain? The authors are not russians, if it makes any difference. ;)

Polar
04-02-2007, 02:07 PM
Yes nowdays all peoples in Poland when born have a birth sertificate with confirm nationality,
My mistake.
nowdays all peoples in Poland when born have a birth sertificate with confirm they what coutry are citizen not nationality.

Egorka
04-04-2007, 05:22 AM
Not at all :)
I know all familly whta wasn't relocated.
I agree, my statement sounds a bit unflexible. And I rushed this one a bit.
That is right some people could move across, but not all who wanted. For example when Red Army had to leave after the final borderr was agreed all who wished could move to USSR (there were up to 100.000 of those). So I guess some movement was possible.
But I also know some people were extradicted to Germany and viseversa to USSR though they wanted to otherwise. I will try to check it.

I found this article "Between the hammer and the anvil: on the fate of jews during the union betwen Hitler and Stalin" by Evgeny Berkovich, 2002, in Russian:
http://berkovich-zametki.com/Nomer3/Poland1.htm

Here are some quotes from there:



Trying to avoid poverty, some jews fled to the West, to the German controlled part of poland. Knowing now how the things developed further, we can call they descission suicidal. But these were few compared to the number of people that fled to the East. About 600.000 poeple, including 350.000 Jews run to the Soviet zone of Eastern Poland (source #5: Siekierski, M. The Jews in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland at the End of 1939. Numbers und Distributions. In Davies, Norman/Polonsky, Antony: Jews in Eastern Poland and USSR. London 1991.). All of them came under suspision of NKVD as spies and saboteurs. Many were send right away to Siberian GULAG.


Until the end 1939, when the border was finaly closed, the Soviet administration sent many people, mainly Jews, back to Germany. According to the agrement with Germany on the exchange of the population (Germans should had go west, Ukrainians - east) the Soviet side accepted only "pure Ukraininas", and by no means Jews (Source #7: С. Шварц. Евреи в Советском Союзе с начала Второй мировой войны (1939 –1945). Нью-Йорк 1966. i.e. Schwartz, Jews in USSR from the beggining of Second World War (1939 - 1945), New-York, 1966.).


I put bold on what might be most relevant for us here. I think the article is not 100% fault proof, but the info about the posibility of the migration accross the new border is more or less ok.

So, you see, the migration was actually possible until end 1939, but not completely free.

Polar
04-05-2007, 06:36 AM
But you said "Ethnic - yes". So in your mind these lands, except Lviv, are not ethnicaly Polish and therefore should not belong to Poland. Do I understand it correctly? ;)

P.S: Have you looked at these to books I mentioned in post #46 about Polish ethinical domain? The authors are not russians, if it makes any difference. ;)

Yes I said "Ethnic - yes" but you wrote

"Does it mean you actually share the view that the eastern Poland was rightfuly joint to USSR becasue Poles were manority even after extensive polonisation campains?";)
This wasn't rightfuly joint to USSR. USRR invade Poland and braek
Polish USRR non-agression pact.

I looked maps from post#46 particulary at this one: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011 and what I see
USRR not only take territory where Polish was minoryty.
I know that this map show in red color territory where Poles are over 50% but did you think that on others terriory show white color Poles not liveing?


(...) Poles were manority even after extensive polonisation campains?
Egorka you wrote about extensive polonisation campains and you ask me how many foresters (osadniki) were settled in the eastern territories in the 1920th and 1930th? You don't know how many foresters (osadniki) were settled but you know that this action was extensive ?

Polar
04-06-2007, 12:58 AM
Interesting Map what show where on Opole Voivodeship was settlet peoples from village terrain former polish east borders
http://www.brozbar12.webpark.pl/grzymalow/mapa-przesiedlen-1.jpg

Red - polish peoples from Tarnopol Voivodeship,
yellow - polish peoples from Lwów Voivodeship,
blue - polish peoples from Wolhynian Voivodeship,
pink - polish peoples from Stanisławów Voivodeship,

Symbols green and black show settlers from others part Poland what wasn't joint to USRR

Chevan
04-06-2007, 07:40 AM
This wasn't rightfuly joint to USSR. USRR invade Poland and braek


Technically USSR didn't invide the Poland in 1939.
The Red Army entered to the western Ukraine in 17 sep when the polish gov run out from Poland. The Poland was in full collapse. ( and this is sadly)
The Stalin's will was that "process" should look like the joining the territories which were lost by the Poland in resault of German agression.


Cheers.

Kovalski
04-06-2007, 08:18 AM
Technically USSR didn't invide the Poland in 1939.
The Red Army entered to the western Ukraine in 17 sep when the polish gov run out from Poland. The Poland was in full collapse. ( and this is sadly)
The Stalin's will was that "process" should look like the joining the territories which were lost by the Poland in resault of German agression.

Cheers.

So tell me something Chevan,

If state "A" sends its army on the territory which belongs to a state "B", and when state "A" orders its units to attack the units of state "B" - so, is it an act of agression (invasion) or not?

There is just one answer. And there is no need to use such words as "technically"...
Just give me a straight answer: "Yes, it is an invasion" or "No, it is not an invasion".

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Polar
04-06-2007, 12:34 PM
Technically USSR didn't invide the Poland in 1939.
The Red Army entered to the western Ukraine in 17 sep when the polish gov run out from Poland.
Chevan when the polish gov run out from Poland? After or Before enter Red Army to Poland ?


The Poland was in full collapse. ( and this is sadly)
What do you mean wrote this?

Egorka
04-08-2007, 02:58 PM
Yes I said "Ethnic - yes" but you wrote

This wasn't rightfuly joint to USSR. USRR invade Poland and braek
Polish USRR non-agression pact.

I looked maps from post#46 particulary at this one: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011 and what I see
USRR not only take territory where Polish was minoryty.
I know that this map show in red color territory where Poles are over 50% but did you think that on others terriory show white color Poles not liveing?
That is right. USSR took also some territories where Poles had mijority.
There are actually 2 maps (I can not quite get the difference beteween them. What do you think?)
#1: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011
According to them (especially the #1) by far the most of the territories taken by USSR did not have Polish majority. It still does not change that it was an agression, but IMO the situation light up quite differently when one looks at the maps like that. At least for me it was rather surprising and interesting to see.


Egorka you wrote about extensive polonisation campains and you ask me how many foresters (osadniki) were settled in the eastern territories in the 1920th and 1930th? You don't know how many foresters (osadniki) were settled but you know that this action was extensive ?
I have to admit I can not put the numbers on the term "extensive" right now. I can remember reading word "extensive" in one of the articles I read.

OK. I take the word "extensive" back untill I find some info (as objective as possible) on this matter.

There is a book in russian "Soviet-Polish wars. Millitary and political opposition. 1918 - 1939" by Mihail Meltyhov, 2001. Available in russian on http://militera.lib.ru I know he covers this suject, but I need some time to read again the right chapters.

So far I have a short quote (just read it yesterday) from "Towns and people of modern Poland" by McBride, Robert Medill, New York, 1938. This is a book writen in very favorable to Poland and Poles language. (You can buy it here ;) : http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6758885&matches=9&qsort=r)




Chapter V
Wilno, seat of pagan Lithuania

on page 111:
We had long looked forward to seeing this, the most Russian, section of Poland and to the city in which the Russians had left their most indelible mark, if indeed any city or district in the Republic still bears the stamp of their former masters. Oppressed almost bayond endurance and hating the Russians as few people in history have done, the Poles have effaced practicaly every trace of their neighbors.

Chevan
04-09-2007, 01:42 AM
So tell me something Chevan,

If state "A" sends its army on the territory which belongs to a state "B", and when state "A" orders its units to attack the units of state "B" - so, is it an act of agression (invasion) or not?

There is just one answer. And there is no need to use such words as "technically"...
Just give me a straight answer: "Yes, it is an invasion" or "No, it is not an invasion".

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Hi mate
I feel ill and vexation in your post.
I could understand.OK. Form the deep childhood you heared the words the "USSR invided the Poland in 1939". This is too obvious for you and you may be think it is sensless to discuss even;)
But now please be cable to understand my point.
For a long time from the school we heared about "slav brotherhood".
We primitively believed in this propoganda.The gov keep the silence about manies things.
They told the Poland was liberated from the bourgeois occupation in 1945.
They tryed to represent the polish society as mostly friendly for the USSR.

Before the downfall of USSR in the 1989 the Poland was absolutly politically free and first in former soviet block had began the hard way of economic reforms ( shock therapy).
So everybody was sure the Poland received the full independence already then.
We naivly thought the russian-polish hostinity lost in the past. And it was absolutly normally to let the poles to do everithing they want.
But the illussion had finally dissapeared in the end of 1990 when the poland choosed the cource to the NATO .
We suddenly heared the "Russia still treats the Poland" and the only way to save the independense is joing to NATO.
Later when the polish right come to the powerb they raised the old polish pipe about ewil russian.
So when we suddenly has know in the Warsaw were renamed one of the street by name of Chechen terrorist and they were a "good guest in the Poland. The constant anti-russian rhetoric of the polish authorities was a amazing for us.
We suddenly have know instead the independent friendly Poland we have got the old polish political enemy. Amd this was at that moment when the our state has a crisis economical and political i.e. during the most unhealthy period.
So as you could see today the authorities got the opposite tactick.
Sometimes it look funny for instance the day of 4 november ( the day when in the 17 century the polish invaiders were banished from the Kremlin) was called as the "Day of national and civil unity". This is pure political and not most wisest desigion we all understant it.
But it was the EQUIVALENT desicion of stupid polish inner politic. So we just have seen the our gov try to "care about us" ( in comparition of Yeltsin times it was the new issure).
So regardering your question with A and B states.
That's right the this was TUPICAL INVASION by the state A to the state B.
Only one exception those lands weren't "belong the state B" (it belongs indeed the state C and D which both were not asked ) on definition becouse the state B early captured it from the state A. ( using the full political haos) ;)
So i/m really agree with you it was tupical invasion but please don't call this lands as polish.

I hope you understand .
Cheers.

Chevan
04-09-2007, 01:48 AM
Chevan when the polish gov run out from Poland? After or Before enter Red Army to Poland ?

Right at that moment. Tak? ;)


What do you mean wrote this?

I/m wote it very sadly the polish 1 million army together with its France ( more the 1 million) and British ( about 100 000) allies was not capable nothing did against the 1,5 germans army ( although the Germans were better equipment).

Cheers.

Egorka
04-09-2007, 05:19 PM
This one is like pooring honey all over my ears... :mrgreen:

New York Times, 01-June-1933


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/453065853_e36123a059_o.gif

Chevan
04-09-2007, 11:16 PM
This one is like pooring honey all over my ears... :mrgreen:

New York Times, 01-June-1933


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/453065853_e36123a059_o.gif
Oh My GOD !!!
Look at this very interesting document
I can't believe the Poland planned to invide the Ukraine. ;)
what could to say our polish friends?

Egorka
04-10-2007, 01:37 AM
Regarding the aledged Nazi-Polish accord, please, read this post of mine I made previously in the thread " Polish Army on the Eastern Front": http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93399&postcount=74

Polar
04-10-2007, 02:05 AM
Oh My GOD !!!
Look at this very interesting document
I can't believe the Poland planned to invide the Ukraine. ;)
what could to say our polish friends?
Answer you have in Egorka post.
Befor 1.IX.1939 German always proposal Poland compensation for ouer land on Pomerania and Upper Silesia on Soviet Ukraina and others place in USRR. As you see these proposal was newer accepted.

Polar
04-10-2007, 02:55 AM
That is right. USSR took also some territories where Poles had mijority.
There are actually 2 maps (I can not quite get the difference beteween them. What do you think?)
#1: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011
According to them (especially the #1) by far the most of the territories taken by USSR did not have Polish majority. It still does not change that it was an agression, but IMO the situation light up quite differently when one looks at the maps like that. At least for me it was rather surprising and interesting to see.
I suppose that the first map show situation about 1910 (this is last date what is on this map) and show situation before ww1 ( as you see on map are many localisation of Poles what don't have on second). The second map based on documents from 1914-1920 and show migration what was doing during ww1 and 2 years after ww1




I have to admit I can not put the numbers on the term "extensive" right now. I can remember reading word "extensive" in one of the articles I read.

OK. I take the word "extensive" back untill I find some info (as objective as possible) on this matter.
The bigest numbers of polish foresters I found in Wiki ( Btw I found only English and Russian(could you translate this article from Russaian) article about foresters) and this was 150.000 peoples. The biggest numbers what I found in polish source was 9000 allotments what was inhabit by 50-60.000 peoples ( the numbers was only give to groups what was settlet by polish gov.)




Chapter V
Wilno, seat of pagan Lithuania

on page 111:
We had long looked forward to seeing this, the most Russian, section of Poland and to the city in which the Russians had left their most indelible mark, if indeed any city or district in the Republic still bears the stamp of their former masters. Oppressed almost bayond endurance and hating the Russians as few people in history have done, the Poles have effaced practicaly every trace of their neighbors.

The authors have propably right but remeber that Poland was newborn after 123 years and Russia was doing russification politcs when ruled this terrain. This same feelings for German have Poples what lived on territory former German Empire.

maproom
04-10-2007, 06:49 AM
Someone has cited some maps on my site:
#1: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

Those URLs are temporary, and may stop working some time. The permanent URLs for these maps are
#1: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

Nick

Egorka
04-10-2007, 06:57 AM
Someone has cited some maps on my site:
#1: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.files.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

Those URLs are temporary, and may stop working some time. The permanent URLs for these maps are
#1: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0010
#2: http://www.maproom.org/00/31/present.php?m=0011

Nick

Thank you very much! Great site! I was thinking to by the book when I saw it on Ebay.com, but was to greedy to pay 150 USD for it. You site made my day!

Kovalski
04-10-2007, 08:17 AM
The echo of 17th September 1939:

Russia and Poland in bitter row over nationality of Auschwitz's victims

Ian Traynor, Europe editor
Tuesday April 10, 2007
The Guardian

The Nazi death camp of Auschwitz is at the centre of a bitter dispute between Russia and Poland, with Moscow accused of seeking to inflate the figures for Soviet wartime victims and Warsaw charged with trying to rewrite the history of the second world war.

The authorities - in charge of the camp where around 1.5 million people, overwhelmingly Jewish, were murdered on an industrial scale - are blocking the re-opening of the permanent Russian exhibition at the site because it classifies innumerable Polish, Jewish and other Auschwitz victims as "Soviet citizens".

Article continues
The row between Russia and Poland over the second world war is also poisoning relations between Moscow and other parts of central Europe previously under Soviet control. Senior Russian politicians are calling for a boycott of Estonia because of plans to remove a memorial to the Red Army troops who routed the Germans in 1945, while a petition movement in Hungary is gaining ground also demanding the demolition of the Soviet war memorial in Budapest.

The dispute between Moscow and its former satellite states who are all now members of Nato and the European Union highlight how history is being hijacked to serve current political ends.

"The Russians still think they are a superpower. It's an ego thing," said Ferenc Hammer, a Hungarian political scientist. "But in Hungary there is no consensus either on whether 1945 was a liberation or the beginning of a Soviet occupation."

Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper last week accused the Poles of using Auschwitz "to blackmail Russia" and to capitalise on the "tragedy of millions".

Polish experts said the Russians had been given three years to resolve the dispute, but had failed to come up with a version of the history of Auschwitz which would satisfy an international panel of historians and former inmates of the camp near Krakow in what was Nazi-occupied Poland.

The row focuses on the start of the second world war when the Nazi and Soviet dictatorships carved up central Europe between them. In September 1939 under the terms of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Hitler invaded Poland while Stalin annexed large tracts of eastern Poland, western Ukraine, Romania and the Baltic region.

The Russians refuse to acknowledge this history in their exhibition at Auschwitz, describing around 1 million Jews from the annexed lands who died in the Holocaust as Soviet citizens. "It's a very painful issue," said Eugeniusz Smolar, a Polish analyst. "For the Poles to accept this is to accept the Nazi-Soviet pact."

Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, former Polish foreign minister and wartime resistance fighter who was incarcerated at Auschwitz, wrote: "They can desecrate their own graves if they want to. But we Poles will not allow ourselves to be misused ... or allow the Jews and Poles who died there to be declared Soviet citizens."

The row exposes the fundamentally opposed perceptions of the second world war across eastern Europe, with Russia insisting that the Poles, Balts, Hungarians and others be grateful for the Red Army's defeat of the Germans across the region, while the central Europeans largely view the arrival of the Russians in 1945 as the start of four decades of communist dictatorship.

For the Estonians, the bronze figure of a Red Army soldier standing in central Tallinn embodies the Baltic state's forced incorporation into the Soviet Union.

The parliament and the government have decided to take down the monument and to exhume the remains of 13 Red Army soldiers in the city centre, removing them to a cemetery on the city's outskirts.

Over the past 18 months Russia has used oil and gas supplies, consumer boycotts, air and travel links, wine and meat sanctions to try to put pressure on Ukraine, Georgia, Poland and the Baltic states.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053255,00.html