PDA

View Full Version : 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland



1PUK
09-17-2009, 04:14 PM
Article in Polish press:-


Poles Remember 17 September 1939.

Poles mark the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland

...............While the date 1 September 1939 is widely remembered across the globe, it often overshadows an equally tragic day in Polish history: 17 September 1939.

On this day 70 years ago, Soviet forces, acting on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact agreed upon by Hitler and Stalin, invaded Poland. The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after...................................

http://www.krakowpost.com/article/1575

Chevan
09-17-2009, 11:35 PM
. The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after...................................

http://www.krakowpost.com/article/1575
Do i understand the phrase right- it's look like Poland was almost defeating the GErman troops in 17 ceptember , but USSR suddenly attacked the polish back and poles unexpectedly for all ( including their allies) losed the war?
Does it claim that without Soviet participation - the Poland probably should win the war?

Ardee
09-18-2009, 11:10 AM
Do i understand the phrase right- it's look like Poland was almost defeating the GErman troops in 17 ceptember , but USSR suddenly attacked the polish back and poles unexpectedly for all ( including their allies) losed the war?
Does it claim that without Soviet participation - the Poland probably should win the war?


Hi Chevan. If you are referring to the line you quoted:

The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after

- then no, the phrase does NOT suggest any of the things you mentioned.

Chevan
09-21-2009, 07:37 AM
Hi Chevan. If you are referring to the line you quoted:
- then no, the phrase does NOT suggest any of the things you mentioned.

OK Ardee , nice to see you again.
let's try the another way.

The plan was to divide the country in half, and Poland, left to fight a war on two fronts, was defeated soon after
Does it sentence claim that if Poland wouln't be left to fight a war on TWO fronts- they wouldn't be defeated soon after?
Does it also claim that there were a simular war with USSR just like it was the war with GErmany?

Ardee
09-21-2009, 07:00 PM
Does it sentence claim that if Poland wouln't be left to fight a war on TWO fronts- they wouldn't be defeated soon after?

No, it doesn't. It states quite simply a) there was a plan between the Germans and Soviets to divide Poland in half, b) Poland was left to fight a two-front war, and c) after the two-front war began, the Poles quickly collapsed.

I would not read anything more into that than what's above. If anything, the only "between the lines" comment that I see is the dig about Poland being "left" to fight a two-front war. And that would be a reference to the failure of France and the UK, both bound by treaties, to take forceful action on Germany's western flank.

Polish planners had known long before the war started that they could not win a one-on-one fight with Germany. Plan Z -- the Polish master plan for the defense against a German invasion, and the plan used in Sept 39 - was based entirely on this assumption. Poland's strategic plan was to roll with the punches, to simply survive until such time as the western allies launched a counterattack in the west, drawing off German forces, and after which, Germany would the one caught in a two-front war. The treaties required such an attack in the west by a specific time line. For many reasons, the Allied did not launch a forceful attack. The Soviets invaded Poland the very day after the west failed to meet their "deadline."

I do not believe the timing of the Soviet attack was a coincidence: Stalin waited until it was obvious the west would not or could not effectively intervene. I believe he had intelligence on the treaties' time lines. IIRC, there was also a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Poland, which Stalin famously dismissed by saying Poland no longer existed as a nation. Poland, which had committed the bulk of its strength to fight in the west, was totally unable to meet the second invasion from the east, and collapsed.


Does it also claim that there were a simular war with USSR just like it was the war with GErmany?

I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say here. If you are asking if the Polish fight against the Soviets was on par with the fight against the Germans, than I would again say no, the sentence doesn't try to indicate anything of the kind. As I indicated above, the reality was the Poles had most of the strength committed to fighting the Germans. On paper, the Poles had a fairly large army (I believe at the time it was ranked as the sixth largest, either in Europe or the world, I forget which), but (because of pressure to delay from France and the UK) it was still mobilizing when the Germans struck, robbing them of a substantial portion of its manpower - I'm going by memory here, but I think they only had about 60% of their strength, and German action against rail and other transportation, coupled with combat losses, surely did not allow that figure to increase appreciably. The Poles had next to nothing left with which to resist the Soviet attack.

I hope that answers your concerns....

Chevan
09-22-2009, 01:58 AM
Well let's talk.

No, it doesn't. It states quite simply a) there was a plan between the Germans and Soviets to divide Poland in half, b) Poland was left to fight a two-front war, and c) after the two-front war began, the Poles quickly collapsed.

The qoute above is quite wrong coz.
a)There were no plan to devide Poland in ..half.
The plan was to devide it on ..along Curzon line, that firstly was recommended by British side on Soviet-polish Ruga peace negoration of 1920.
The line of Curzon was an ethnical border that might be taken as a state border, but Poland has demanded not just serious part of Ukraine and Belorussia but a half of Luthinia..... including the Vilnus:)
The post ww1 poland has seized the big territories of its neighbourgs, see the map of Poland 1918-1922 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/HistPol-odbudowaPanstwaPolskiego1918-22.png/705px-HistPol-odbudowaPanstwaPolskiego1918-22.png)
After the 1939 Poland lost EXACTLY those territories (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Map_of_Poland_%281945%29_corr.png)
b)Poland endeed never declared war on USSR, neither fought against Red Army.
The polish commander Rudz-Smugly specially ordered to rest of polish troops near Lviv NOT TO resist the red army.
So in fact - the polish-soviet second front NEVER existed.
c)Polans was endeed quicly collapsed already until september 14.In 16 september the GErman army has reached the Curzon line, advancing further on many places.


Polish planners had known long before the war started that they could not win a one-on-one fight with Germany. Plan Z -- the Polish master plan for the defense against a German invasion, and the plan used in Sept 39 - was based entirely on this assumption. Poland's strategic plan was to roll with the punches, to simply survive until such time as the western allies launched a counterattack in the west, drawing off German forces, and after which, Germany would the one caught in a two-front war. The treaties required such an attack in the west by a specific time line. For many reasons, the Allied did not launch a forceful attack. The Soviets invaded Poland the very day after the west failed to meet their "deadline."

It's true.
However the France and britain were obligated to start the active war on West within two weeks after the GErman attack on poland.It was a special condition of Polish-British treaty.
That's why the 14-15 september was the day when west finaly failed to do soemthing.And poles had finally realized - the game is over.


I do not believe the timing of the Soviet attack was a coincidence: Stalin waited until it was obvious the west would not or could not effectively intervene. I believe he had intelligence on the treaties' time lines. IIRC, there was also a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Poland, which Stalin famously dismissed by saying Poland no longer existed as a nation. Poland, which had committed the bulk of its strength to fight in the west, was totally unable to meet the second invasion from the east, and collapsed.

They can't even hold the invasion from the west alone.This is very importaint fact that dismiss the argument about TWO front compain, that ostensibly only POLAND CAN'T wage.
In face of circumstances, the GErman shall capture all the POLAND most late- 28 September, when Warsaw falled.


I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say here. If you are asking if the Polish fight against the Soviets was on par with the fight against the Germans, than I would again say no, the sentence doesn't try to indicate anything of the kind. As I indicated above, the reality was the Poles had most of the strength committed to fighting the Germans. On paper, the Poles had a fairly large army (I believe at the time it was ranked as the sixth largest, either in Europe or the world, I forget which), but (because of pressure to delay from France and the UK) it was still mobilizing when the Germans struck, robbing them of a substantial portion of its manpower - I'm going by memory here, but I think they only had about 60% of their strength, and German action against rail and other transportation, coupled with combat losses, surely did not allow that figure to increase appreciably. The Poles had next to nothing left with which to resist the Soviet attack.

The Poles endeed was going to hold the last step of defence near Lviv and near Romanian border against Germany.
But strategically it will be just adventure - losing of time and lives.
There were almost of 300 000 of Polish troops here( almost all of them were captured by Red Army) who DIDN"T even try to fight.
As i said above the Rudz-Smugly ordered not to began the active combat with Red Army.
The other serious factor that made the poles to surrender soon- the very hostile relation the local ukrainians to polish army and poles.The local population started the partisan warfare against poles.
There were a case when the polish captured officer asked NKVD command to reinforce the guard of polish pows- the locals threated to kill them all.
You should remember the Volyn massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia) that happend in 1943-44.
So it easy might to heppend in ...1939-1940.Believe me.
And GErmans should be just sit and wait , looking at bloody pogroms, just like they looked at anti-semitic pogroms on Poland and Ukraine.
I/m not advocating the Soviet re-occupation of Western Ukraine- it was agression for definition.The Nazi-Soviet agreements as well.
But every time when one more irrational pole claim the bul...t about soviet attack of "Eastern Poland"- i want to ask him - how about Volyn? Did they rememder it as strong as they remember 17 september?

Ardee
09-22-2009, 03:00 PM
Chevan, I've wondered what your motivation was for your questions, and I guess that is now pretty clear. You do seem to be overly-sensitive to the topic of how Poles view the war, and hope you will not degrade to behaving like a troll. So far as I am concerned, I am ending my participation in this thread with this post, as I don't wish to be drawn into a fight on the subject.

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting there was no Plan to divide Poland in half, because the territories seized by the USSR were ones that were previously part of the Ukraine, etc? I'll suggest to you that that view point is not as valid as you seem to feel: whatever the history, the area seized by the USSR in 1939 was legally and internationally recognized as part of Poland. IIRC, even the USSR had hitherto acknowledged this, though it may have done so without joy. In any case, there are parts of Europe that have changed hands so many times over the centuries that it is silly to base an argument on past sovereignty. If instead you base your argument on the ethnicity of the people living there, you may have a stronger argument - though of course, at the risk of opening topics such as your approach to, say, the Balkans. But even so, your argument fails because of what the accepted borders were for Poland at the time. You may not like it, but that is the reality.

Also, to take your statement about Rudz-Smugly's orders at face value (I'm not familiar with the details), I also believe there were still instances of Polish armed resistance to the Soviets, with casualties to both sides. Certainly the Soviets took control of the territory by virtue of the armed forces sent to occupy it. To claim such wasn't "war" seems an interesting point of view, but that's up to you.

shamilbasaev
09-23-2009, 06:55 AM
60 y after war and the real true about the beginig are so hard to say! For me both Nazi Germany and USSR are starting the war. Bloody Hitler and bloody Stalin, what is different!?
But there are another nuance - the pre-war polish politic. This politic was not very peaceful. Remember Polish ultimatums against Lithuanians and Czechs.

Chevan
10-02-2009, 04:51 AM
Chevan, I've wondered what your motivation was for your questions, and I guess that is now pretty clear. You do seem to be overly-sensitive to the topic of how Poles view the war, and hope you will not degrade to behaving like a troll. So far as I am concerned, I am ending my participation in this thread with this post, as I don't wish to be drawn into a fight on the subject.

I'ts true , i bit sensitive to this theme.
But i have to add- this is not just russian-polish problem , but rather polish-ukrainian.
You point is correct to some extend , but you probably didn't specialy study this theme, i guess?


If I understand your argument, you are suggesting there was no Plan to divide Poland in half, because the territories seized by the USSR were ones that were previously part of the Ukraine, etc? I'll suggest to you that that view point is not as valid as you seem to feel: whatever the history, the area seized by the USSR in 1939 was legally and internationally recognized as part of Poland.

Oh yes, sure.
But there is a serious problem.
But let me remind you by whom the Riga threaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga) has been recognized - by Bolshevic government ( RSFSR and Bolshevic Ukrain) from one side and by polish inviders from other.
I don't really think you will claim the Bolshevics were the legitime govenment of Russia that time ( 1921) keep also in mind there still existed the White Russian government who still fought the Bolshevics in Civil war.
The other serious point - were there the represantatives of peoples in Riga , who lives at the lands of Western Ukraine?
No..
The western Ukraine was endeed the Ukrainian Peoples Republic leading by Semen Petlura which was allied to Poland.Petlura fought the boslhevics too.
However instead to supprot their ally, Poles just.... joined it's land to Poland:)
So from objective outside point- the Polish-Soviet agreement was nothing more than Imperialistic separation of Ukrainain land.Both were agressors.
Just like it later happend in 1939 with Poland itself.
Don't believe me- asc any ukrainian.
The Ukrainians endeed NEVER recognized this threaty. The so called "Eastern Poland" existed ONLY in imperialistic dreams on Poles.


IIRC, even the USSR had hitherto acknowledged this, though it may have done so without joy.

it's true.
Just like the West later fully acknowledged the borders of 1945:)


In any case, there are parts of Europe that have changed hands so many times over the centuries that it is silly to base an argument on past sovereignty. If instead you base your argument on the ethnicity of the people living there, you may have a stronger argument - though of course, at the risk of opening topics such as your approach to, say, the Balkans. But even so, your argument fails because of what the accepted borders were for Poland at the time. You may not like it, but that is the reality.

Don't me like that , but Ukrainians themself.
And it's not good from poles to ignore the obvious things.

1PUK
10-07-2009, 01:27 PM
one more irrational pole

Its says something when someone starts throwing insults.

Rising Sun*
10-08-2009, 06:13 AM
Its says something when someone starts throwing insults.

Perhaps, but let's not make throwing insults a habit in this thread.

royal744
01-05-2010, 09:14 PM
OK Ardee , nice to see you again.
let's try the another way.

Does it sentence claim that if Poland wouln't be left to fight a war on TWO fronts- they wouldn't be defeated soon after?
Does it also claim that there were a simular war with USSR just like it was the war with GErmany?

Geez, Chevan, what's your point? Silly man. Perhaps the point is that the Soviets were in bed with the devil and decided to carve up Poland to suit their own ends. When the devil turned on the Soviets, all sorts of righteous indignation came from Moscow. The west made a deal with the Soviet devil because they hated and feared Hitler more than Stalin and the Soviets eventually chewed up a very high proportion of the German army. That the Germans were basically insane to attack the Soviet Union in the first place is common knowledge. That the Russians were willing to jump into bed with the Germans doesn't do them much credit and didn't do them any good at all when the Germans attacked. The Poles were the victims both during and after the war.

Kovalski
02-20-2010, 11:46 AM
There were almost of 300 000 of Polish troops here( almost all of them were captured by Red Army) who DIDN"T even try to fight.
As i said above the Rudz-Smugly ordered not to began the active combat with Red Army.

In my opinion there was no point in attacking any Soviet unit as the campaign was already lost for Poles. I think that historians will argue about that order for many years, if it was right decision or not.
Most of polish units avoided the fight, because they were also ordered to march towards Romanian border. They were given right to engage Soviets in self-defence or in case when RA was blocking their path.
Meanwhile, whole polish Border Security Corps resisted and tried to delay the Soviet advance as long as possible. Also Independent Operational Group "Polesie" and Reserve Cavalry Brigade of "Wołkowysk" were actively engaging the Red Army. In many towns and villages the defiance was organized by local small military units, volunteers, teenage scouts.

Chevan
04-04-2010, 02:04 PM
Meanwhile, whole polish Border Security Corps resisted and tried to delay the Soviet advance as long as possible. Also Independent Operational Group "Polesie" and Reserve Cavalry Brigade of "Wołkowysk" were actively engaging the Red Army. In many towns and villages the defiance was organized by local small military units, volunteers, teenage scouts.
That was absolutly ..illegal,coz Polish govenment did,t declared war on USSR.Neither we were in condition of war.
BTW the local polish defence were organized not as much against RA as againts the agressive groups of Ukraine nationalists, who burded by desire of bloody "retrebution".

Chevan
04-04-2010, 02:26 PM
Geez, Chevan, what's your point? Silly man. Perhaps the point is that the Soviets were in bed with the devil and decided to carve up Poland to suit their own ends. When the devil turned on the Soviets, all sorts of righteous indignation came from Moscow. The west made a deal with the Soviet devil because they hated and feared Hitler more than Stalin and the Soviets eventually chewed up a very high proportion of the German army. That the Germans were basically insane to attack the Soviet Union in the first place is common knowledge. That the Russians were willing to jump into bed with the Germans doesn't do them much credit and didn't do them any good at all when the Germans attacked. The Poles were the victims both during and after the war.
Well ,the point is , if to look at general , mr clever boy , that Poland was a real victim not just "both devils" but , before all - it was a victim of extremaly dastard policy of the their western allies , who specially directed hitler to east , getting false guaranties which they weren't even going to realize.So Poles should be stay absolutly ALONE before the "devils lied into bed".And that's is the really sad fact , that is still unpopular.
The bitter true of story is that neither Poland nor their "phony" allies didn't even GOING to declare the war neither 1939 nor later to "Soviet agressor"(Stalin knew this , othervise he would so easy sent RA to Western Ukraine) , as it widelly affirmed today.That makes us to doubt in widespread point.Maybe coz soviet never entered to the Polish territory endeed?It was Ukrainian territory , as ukrainians think.

Boru
04-05-2010, 03:32 AM
The factional novel 'The Engineer' released for this anniversary has got wide acclaim as an easy read summary of events that highlights the issue of Soviet intervention and gives some better perspective to the Polish position for the English speaking reader as well as the political pressures of France and Britain which contributed to the loss of the campaign. Opening up the so called Ukrainian story takes us a bit further back in time! The 'Borderland' and plebiscites and ethnicity and nationalism was hardly the real issue there, rather the re run of the 1920's when Stalin suffered a personal affront! Surely it is at least sensible with all the knowledge we have today to accept that the Polish army fought a good campaign, the Piloish air force was not destroyed on the ground and the small navy made a good contribution to the war effort. Unfortunately Russkis did intervene and brought the end to the Poles and betrayed Ukrainian aspirations.

Chevan
04-05-2010, 04:45 AM
I'm afraid the nationalistic troubles and polish-ukrainin ethnic hostilities were there for a long time even Stalin was born.The problem of Polish point of view is that- the Ukraine itlesf ( neither ukrainian leader) NEVER recognized the Western Ukraine as "Eastern Poland".People who don't notice the events like Volun massacre are just blind ( or cynic).
The Soviet attack, was re-occupation of the territories that UkrSSR considered as it's stolen land. This point is also supported by the fact that Polish army didn't resisted to RA like they fought against Germany.I'm not doubt the Poles fought very well for its motherland. but they didn't fight at all for "Eastern poland". Becouse the local population NEVER accepted their land beeing part of Poland.

Boru
04-06-2010, 07:54 AM
I suppose it is a matter of the historical nature of tribalism converting to nationalism beginning in the late 19th century.
However you seem to miss the significance of the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686. Presumably you are also counting cossacks as an ethnic group rather than a military order in origin. I am sorry that to argue in the way Dmowski or Bandera did for some narrow interpretation of the nation state is to miss the point of a nations collective spirit or culture.
Poles were not interlopers in this area of the Borderland, the Ukraine anymore than anyone else. Religion was more a dividing line than other matters and fully exploited by the atheistic Soviets who certainly stamped on Ukrainian nationalism as well as the so called kulaks.

Kregs
12-31-2010, 01:06 AM
The factional novel 'The Engineer' released for this anniversary has got wide acclaim as an easy read summary of events that highlights the issue of Soviet intervention and gives some better perspective to the Polish position for the English speaking reader as well as the political pressures of France and Britain which contributed to the loss of the campaign

I remember reading "The Engineer" in a hospital waiting room. My wife of sixty-three years (the poor lass) was, at the time, struggling in her fight against lung cancer. I promised to buy her the book before she died: a promise I didn't break (unfortunately that was the only promise I didn't break in our turbulent life together.)

She, if my rusty memory serves me, wrote her dissertation on the empty assurances French and British diplomats gave the Poles in late 1938 and early 1939. They, the French and the British, gave lip service to the idea of supporting the Polish ground forces in the event of a possible invasion. The French, knowing that their own military cadre was not up to snuff, stalled and told Lipski that they would relay the matter to the League of Nations if the Germans invaded; the British, on the other hand, preferred to act as an "offshore balancer," letting the continental powers handle the German threat, and leaving Poland to its own devices. After all, didn't the British once state that they had very little interest in protecting Eastern Europe? I, however, find it depressing to read about France's negligible treatment of the "Little Entente," the pro-French eastern European states formed after World War I. If the French were really earnest about deterring German aggression, wouldn't they focus exclusively on building a stronger eastern bloc to in order to contain the threat? The French, it seems, gave the Eastern states a plastic box-cutter instead of a genuine sword.

I agree with Chevan about the Soviet intervention. The Soviet "invasion" in the east was mild compared to the German invasion in the west. That can be attested to in the mortality rates-- 700 to 1,000 on the Eastern Front, 8,000 to 16,000 on the Western Front. A friend of mine, who wrote an analysis on the condition of the Polish army, cavalry brigades, navy, and air force in 1939, stated that the eastern Kresy was poorly defended-- only some border guards were forced to hold back the full onslaught of the invasion.

Kregs
01-03-2011, 02:01 AM
The problem of Polish point of view is that- the Ukraine itlesf ( neither ukrainian leader) NEVER recognized the Western Ukraine as "Eastern Poland".People who don't notice the events like Volun massacre are just blind ( or cynic).

That standpoint is very much fair game. While the Poles were suppressing Ukrainian nationalism in the former Austrian-Hungarian territory of Galicia, the Ukrainians were contemplating terrorism in order to achieve statehood and independence: a vicious cycle that climaxed in the massacre, an event I remember very vividly as a teenager. Three young Polish children hid behind our house, a tall, two-story edifice hiding the rows of budding wheat ears stretching for numerous acres in the vast countryside; they were afraid of the UPA, or, more specifically, the Bandera, who roamed the villages looking for non-Ukrainians to murder.


The Soviet attack, was re-occupation of the territories that UkrSSR considered as it's stolen land. This point is also supported by the fact that Polish army didn't resisted to RA like they fought against Germany.I'm not doubt the Poles fought very well for its motherland. but they didn't fight at all for "Eastern poland". Becouse the local population NEVER accepted their land beeing part of Poland.

Also because it wasn't profitable to do so. The weapon factories that built the equipment the Poles needed to hold off the Germans were concentrated heavily on the western frontier, the contentious border Poland shared with Germany. Also, the Poles were expecting the Germans to invade in the west, so naturally, every scrap of manpower and weaponry the Poles could muster together were thrown at the Germans on the western front. (Interestingly, some army groups weren't even mobilized until last minute, probably the result of British and French warnings against the practice.)

Cojimar 1945
02-08-2011, 06:18 PM
Didn't Poland's borders extend as far territories incorporated in the 1920s back in the late 1600s? I was reading about Peter the Great and it sounds like Poland was fairly large back in the late 1600s. One could dispute the Polish claim to the lands but it seems that originally Russia did not possess the territories either and only gradually expanded into them over time.

Boru
02-12-2011, 10:55 AM
Did someone mention Ukraine here? Do you mean that place known more correctly as the Ukraine, the Ukraine, that part of the old Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth inhabited by Rusyns or Ruthenians, the borderlands as they were known. This same place was invented as a country as a notion prior to the 1st world war. This same place ruled by the Vikings from Kijow and previously inhabited by Polans (those Poles again they get everywhere!). ah yes the same place ruled by the Russian Empire both Red and White and depopulated and repopulated by ethnic Russians.
Of course Pilsudski and Petlieura tried for the old federation but the RA certainly squashed the idea until the Red Horse Army was rolled upand over by the Poles in the south in 20's. Did Stalin ever forgive them as he was political Commissar down there where the defeat happened. I doubt it!
As regards the Curzon line what on earth had that to do with ethnicity? I doubt Stalin ever heard of it before Churchill put it on the table. After all we must never forget Britains imperial past as in 1918 they were unlike the Americans not in the forefront of natuional identity. The Foreign Office simply went for the obvious without a Russian Empire put the border back to the last partition of Poland - keep things stable and in good imperial order.
Complicated stuff the Ukraine and its role in 20th century politics in the East.

Chevan
03-30-2011, 12:05 AM
Did someone mention Ukraine here? Do you mean that place known more correctly as the Ukraine, the Ukraine, that part of the old Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth inhabited by Rusyns or Ruthenians, the borderlands as they were known. This same place was invented as a country as a notion prior to the 1st world war. This same place ruled by the Vikings from Kijow and previously inhabited by Polans (those Poles again they get everywhere!). ah yes the same place ruled by the Russian Empire both Red and White and depopulated and repopulated by ethnic Russians.

Hmmmn Vikings from Kijow..
Sounds new for me. This is your personal historical investigation? It was Kiev's Rus as i knew before. The first ancient place where from Russian nation come. It can't be populated by Russians , coz they initially appeared there..


Of course Pilsudski and Petlieura tried for the old federation but the RA certainly squashed the idea until the Red Horse Army was rolled upand over by the Poles in the south in 20's. Did Stalin ever forgive them as he was political Commissar down there where the defeat happened. I doubt it!

Stalin had no actualy deal to the Red Army's march to Germany of 1919. It was obcessed idea of Trockij- to help the GErman revolution.And Semen Petlieura was forced to join the Polish side, coz he stand on position of Independent Western Ukrainian Peoples Republic that was later fully betrayed and occuped by Poland.


As regards the Curzon line what on earth had that to do with ethnicity? I doubt Stalin ever heard of it before Churchill put it on the table. After all we must never forget Britains imperial past as in 1918 they were unlike the Americans not in the forefront of natuional identity. The Foreign Office simply went for the obvious without a Russian Empire put the border back to the last partition of Poland - keep things stable and in good imperial order.

It had endeed the direct deal to ethnicity. That's why Churcill offered it in 1920. But poles wanted the territories populated by non-polish majority. That's why the terrible Volun later happend.The Polish-Ukrainian border of 1945 looks much like the Curzon line , that proves that CHurcill was right couple decades back.Stalin just has realized it on practice.

Kregs
04-11-2011, 02:43 PM
This same place was invented as a country as a notion prior to the 1st world war.

The history of Ukraine goes back farther than World War I. In fact, the concept of a Ukrainian nation started much earlier, perhaps, if I'm guessing correctly, during the Cossack rising of 1648, although I'm not entirely sure if the Cossacks were nationalists in modern sense of the word.


This same place ruled by the Vikings from Kijow and previously inhabited by Polans

That appears in the Russian chronicles, written several centuries after the events they relate. The Vikings were most likely not "invited" to the region but after material objects and, perhaps, profitable trade routes for their merchants back home.


ah yes the same place ruled by the Russian Empire both Red and White and depopulated and repopulated by ethnic Russians.

Ukraine was never completely depopulated, but instead, subjugated and later partitioned by the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and the Russian empire. Ukraine was divided into a left bank and a right bank, and then, after Poland was partitioned three times, into a third region; so, in other words, Ukraine was constantly controlled but never completely depopulated of ethnic Ukrainians!

Kregs
04-11-2011, 10:12 PM
As regards the Curzon line what on earth had that to do with ethnicity?

I'm assuming that you're mentioning the Curzon line for two reasons--correct me if I'm wrong on each of them. First, to state that Stalin didn't know about the line until Churchill proposed that arrangement; second, to insinuate that the Paris conference leaders, particularly President Wilson, made a major gaffe; the Curzon line was less about the ethnicity issue and more about controlling chaotic military situation in the east.

In regards to Stalin, I must say that he knew a great deal about the Curzon line, much more than most people would expect. He was commissar of the Southwestern front, a job that included sending reinforcements and supplies to the Red Army. Stalin's job became more complicated when the Red Army started to retreat from Warsaw, and the Polish army started to advance quickly past the Curzon line and into the contested kresy. In fact, as the Red Army retreated, the Poles advanced more than 100 miles past the Curzon line, swept into Belarus in the east, and cut off the Lithuanian army's access to Vilna in the north. Stalin was there, he would have seen all of this with his own eyes. Stalin was also greatly angered and humiliated when he learned of Lenin's decision after the Red Army retreat. Lenin's decision, of course, was simple and wise: abandon the operation and cut a deal with the Poles. Stalin,however, knew that he must reverse Lenin's decision by first regaining the Kresy by military force, and then using the Curzon line to justify his military conquest.

Chevan
06-24-2011, 02:25 AM
In regards to Stalin, I must say that he knew a great deal about the Curzon line, much more than most people would expect. He was commissar of the Southwestern front, a job that included sending reinforcements and supplies to the Red Army. Stalin's job became more complicated when the Red Army started to retreat from Warsaw, and the Polish army started to advance quickly past the Curzon line and into the contested kresy. In fact, as the Red Army retreated, the Poles advanced more than 100 miles past the Curzon line, swept into Belarus in the east, and cut off the Lithuanian army's access to Vilna in the north. Stalin was there, he would have seen all of this with his own eyes. Stalin was also greatly angered and humiliated when he learned of Lenin's decision after the Red Army retreat. Lenin's decision, of course, was simple and wise: abandon the operation and cut a deal with the Poles. Stalin,however, knew that he must reverse Lenin's decision by first regaining the Kresy by military force, and then using the Curzon line to justify his military conquest.
Lenin's decision was definitelly wise in that period but Poles tryed to catch the pie they can't east- the big part of Ukraine , Belorussia and Litva.the British delegation in Ruga has tryed to covinve the Poles to follow the Curzon line in territorial demands to defeated soviet Russia.The Ukraine also had own view at the territorial borders, different of Polish. Without Stalin's dreams , the Poland got a serious ethnic troubles , inviding the territories, populated by non-polish majorities.


Also because it wasn't profitable to do so. The weapon factories that built the equipment the Poles needed to hold off the Germans were concentrated heavily on the western frontier, the contentious border Poland shared with Germany. Also, the Poles were expecting the Germans to invade in the west, so naturally, every scrap of manpower and weaponry the Poles could muster together were thrown at the Germans on the western front. (Interestingly, some army groups weren't even mobilized until last minute, probably the result of British and French warnings against the practice.)
Which warnings do you mean? Britain forbid to mobilaze fully the Polish army?

Kovalski
07-08-2011, 02:33 AM
Didn't Poland's borders extend as far territories incorporated in the 1920s back in the late 1600s? I was reading about Peter the Great and it sounds like Poland was fairly large back in the late 1600s. One could dispute the Polish claim to the lands but it seems that originally Russia did not possess the territories either and only gradually expanded into them over time.

Bull's-eye! :)

Chevan
07-08-2011, 06:42 AM
He-he. Russians sure didn't owned the territoies of contemporary Russia centures ago:)
Just like the USA, Britain, Poland and rest of the world..Even finn come to contemporary Finland 10 000 years back from...Syberia.
As fo Ukraine. it's actually doesn't matter who owned its territories in past. The one of the basic democratic rule - is the right of nation for self-determination. if Ukrainan people want to be independent - no one external force, whatever part of Russian Impare or imposed "Eastern Poland" has no right to determine their fate. As i said , for national ukrainian leaders( at least for the their reasonable-thinking part of them) neither Soviet nor Polish occupation wasn't legitime.

Kregs
09-24-2011, 06:10 PM
Lenin's decision was definitelly wise in that period but Poles tryed to catch the pie they can't east- the big part of Ukraine , Belorussia and Litva.the British delegation in Ruga has tryed to covinve the Poles to follow the Curzon line in territorial demands to defeated soviet Russia.The Ukraine also had own view at the territorial borders, different of Polish. Without Stalin's dreams , the Poland got a serious ethnic troubles , inviding the territories, populated by non-polish majorities.

I apologize for the delayed response, Chevan. I didn't even realize that this thread was still alive and active; but regardless of what I may think, I agree wholeheartedly, Chevan, Poland wanted to reinforce the lost territories of the old Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and didn't take notice of the increasingly nationalist Ukrainian population in the right bank. Belorussia is a completely different concept, as this ethnic group assimilated much faster than the Ukrainian, Jewish and German minorities, who showed little to no sympathy for the new Polish state because of state-wide discrimination (Jewish and Ukrainian population), ethnic differences (German population), and police violence (Ukrainian population.)

But after the 1921 war, Poland's borders became internationally recognized despite Ukrainian resistance. So, therefore, any attempts to alter by force the borders established at Riga and recognized by the Entente, violates international law.


Which warnings do you mean? Britain forbid to mobilaze fully the Polish army?

Poland was only partly mobilized until the very last day--August 30, 1939--when it was certain that Germany would indeed invade. Britain and France, France in particular, told the Poles that they would withhold military assistance if mobilization were declared, which amounts to an open declaration of war. This is why the Poles secretly mobilized their forces in the summer of 1939, to avoid allied pressure.

Chevan
09-25-2011, 12:49 AM
Poland was only partly mobilized until the very last day--August 30, 1939--when it was certain that Germany would indeed invade. Britain and France, France in particular, told the Poles that they would withhold military assistance if mobilization were declared, which amounts to an open declaration of war. This is why the Poles secretly mobilized their forces in the summer of 1939, to avoid allied pressure.
Well this is new for me.This is though probably had a sense coz the total mobilization means a declaration of war.And as we know Poland was not going to fight with GErmany alone. The allied assistence was promiced within two weeks.So the probably the total mobilisation were seen by the western allies as unnecessary. However keeping in mind the fact the west did nothing to help - the demand not to mobilize the polish army might be considered as a provocation of Germany.

Chevan
09-26-2011, 07:14 AM
But after the 1921 war, Poland's borders became internationally recognized despite Ukrainian resistance. So, therefore, any attempts to alter by force the borders established at Riga and recognized by the Entente, violates international law.
.
Well, lets look at one historical even from THIS point.
American war of independece.
Were the American revolution violation of international law? Definitelly yes, if we take into consideration the fact it was the British Colony with officially internationaly reconnized borders and internationaly signed treaties.But from american point- the British dominantion was just the Violation of rights of native americans.
So who care now about International law?
As for Riga threaty , well , one can say it was sort of Colonian war betwen Poland and Russia and it was direct violation of law and rights of entires peoples who lived on territories , curved by those monsters. Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?And which true is actual?
We may to undesratand the Western recognition of Treaty as a forced/temporary mean to stop a bloody war- still it was better then continie violence.However western powers , Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.

Kregs
09-27-2011, 10:34 PM
I will try to answer your points one-by-one, Chevan, if you will be patient with some of my answers.


Well, lets look at one historical even from THIS point.
American war of independece.
Were the American revolution violation of international law? Definitelly yes, if we take into consideration the fact it was the British Colony with officially internationaly reconnized borders and internationaly signed treaties.But from american point- the British dominantion was just the Violation of rights of native americans.


The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right. I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law? If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?

After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.


Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?

Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.

I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands--no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.


Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.

The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn't even clear on its own policy towards Poland's eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn't want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.

So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn't have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn't have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn't have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2011, 05:29 AM
There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...

Chevan
10-02-2011, 02:48 AM
There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...
Whay then the "original englishmens" did sent then the regular royal army in America?;)Seems they didn't see the american "englishmens" like a juridical counterpart of themslef.

Chevan
10-02-2011, 07:38 AM
I will try to answer your points one-by-one, Chevan, if you will be patient with some of my answers.

OK, its always interesting to hear the another arguments from a member who probably know more then me.


The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right.

Well,it sounds like the American revolt has been directed against the British colonian administration in America. Kinda the British Parliament and King didn't guess about violations of right in its' American colonies. All the "englishmens" seems were the equal all aroud the Commonwealth , right?
And BRitish colonian autorities , seems , violated the British Stamp Act of 1765, when realized it on practice in British america?
I think not. The British parliament( not the local administration) was fully responsible for "anti-american lawless".
I fully admit that the American revolt was start as the fight for right of "englismens", but the problem was that the "original British" englismens didn't recognized them like at the same englishmens. And since event, when former colonies has declared Independence 4 jule , the problem could not lie any more time in plain of inner Commonwealth juridical system. it was getting matter of international affairs.Illegal from point of British parliament BTW( otherwise why had they send the Royal army , instead to sent parlamentaries )



I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law?

Formaly no, unless the newly born govenment of Carolina would not admit the laws that VIOLATES the right of the Americans from another states who lives or arrives carrently in Carolina( that is hardly possible in practise endeed- i meant to separate the civils and not violate the right of others). Also it the new authorities would NOT provoke the ethnical, race, religious conflicts that may case the war or ethnical crimes. Or to publich a laws that violates the Economical or juridical rights of the others americans, who out of Carolina. ( what exactly happend with British American colonies two centures back) Othervise the another states of USA may declare the war against the Carolina ( and thus it getting the international law subject).
However in practice all the great nation has a buch of special means (ether juridical or political) against separatism. I remember few years ago the mass media PRed the scandal with American Indians Lakota whose leaders declared independence from USA.;) Their claims BTW , were based on legal basis -the 6-article of American constitution. Why , on your mind , they didn't get independence finally?
becouse NO ONE nation will tolerate such a ethnic separatism.Nor Britain in Ireland, nor Spain( basks) not even the Russia in caucaus.


If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?

Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.


After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.

It's true and it works. But unfortinutelly not all the time:)


Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.

The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR;)
Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.


I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands--no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.

Fully agree. And i never claimed the Russia is a innocent. We had absorbed a lot of nations endeed for a long time period of expansions. Same did the Poland BTW.



The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn't even clear on its own policy towards Poland's eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn't want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.

So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn't have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn't have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn't have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.
Well all this point i agree. We know how often the fate of nations became the puppet in political games of the great nations. I beleive the both France and Britain want Poland to be the strong their allies. However why they didn't not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East? I guess coz they more trusted to poles. Or didn't believed to ukrainians. Anyway we saw just a tupical political trade in this case. Well, let go back to an Rigas treaty, which you claim to be recognized.
It was signed between the Polish gov in face of Pilsudski and Boslevic gov. Who were the Bolshevics in 1921?

Nickdfresh
10-02-2011, 09:45 AM
Whay then the "original englishmens" did sent then the regular royal army in America?;)Seems they didn't see the american "englishmens" like a juridical counterpart of themslef.

They didn't so much send an army as they reinforced it. I'm no expert on the American Revolution/War of Independence. But I think one of the key British complaints was that the Americas were expensive to defend and the four French-Indian Wars, where colonial militias and the British Army fought the French and their native allies and where most of the American officers such as Gen. Washington gained their experience, were extremely costly and revenue had to come from somewhere. But there always had been a British garrison in what is the present day United States and Canada. And yes, they didn't see Americans as equal Englishmen, consequently the war became one of Independence rather than a rebellion, and also a bit of a bitter civil war between American Patriots and the Torys (Loyalists to the Crown)....

leccy
10-02-2011, 02:38 PM
There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a "revolution" initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov't. The initial militias were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen," not Americans...

The right to be represented in parliament since they were being taxed and told what they could and could not do but had no say in any of it.

steben
10-03-2011, 09:19 AM
The right to be represented in parliament since they were being taxed and told what they could and could not do but had no say in any of it.

In other words:
The interpretation of a situation where the balance between economic influence and political influence is lost.

And this goes for about every uprising. From the Ancient Roman transition from kingdom to republic, to the French revolution, over American Revolution, (even the Belgian one), and the American Civil War.

Kregs
12-05-2011, 03:04 PM
I do apologize for the delayed response, Chevan. I have been very ill lately, and I have not had time to respond. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability because I am not American, but I have only recently studied the history of this great country. Our concept of international law has changed so much over the span of 200 years that it is difficult to talk about the law with any certainty.



The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR
Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.

It is quite simple: Poland has always considered the Right Bank an integral part of the Polish nation, which is why Pilsudski was eager to renege on his promise to the Ukrainians after he defeated the Soviets. The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was that Poland ignored Ukraine's desire to form a separate nation. The Poles have never considered Ukrainians a separate identity, but have always tried to convert them. In the 1600s, the Polish Catholics deliberately denied several rights to the remaining non-Polonized Ukrainians in the Right Bank; they banned Ukrainians from living in the cities (most Ukrainians were serfs or peasants, so this was not an issue until the reforms of 1848), they banned Orthodox priests from preaching, and even denied Ukrainians the right to marry whomever they choose. This mentality did disappear with the Great War, and as a result, the Poles ignored the Ukrainians' desires for separation. It is tragic.


However why they didn't not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East?

My guess is that the allies did not think very much of an independent Ukraine. You also have to consider the time frame of the Versailles Treaty. The treaty was written after the war, and the allies did not want another war on the continent, so they were willing to sign over Ukraine to satisfy Poland and stop the war in the east. Unfortunately, Ukraine was not consulted.


Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.

Was this an international violation before the League of Nations? I, myself, do not know, but I will most certainly check.

Cojimar 1945
04-05-2012, 04:32 PM
Simply reestablishing Poland's borders to what they were before the country was dissolved and absorbed by its neighbors seems reasonable. If people had attempted to expand the borders of Poland far beyond what it was historically then one could make a better argument that what was being done was unjust. The absorption of Poland by neighboring countries in the 1700s seems more unjust than the attempt to reestablsih Poland.

As far as ethnicity, I don't think it is always important in determining where a countries borders should lie. Catherine the Great was able to rule Russia despite not being Russian and as far as I can tell Russians didn't see a contradiction in being ruled by someone who was German.