Re: The Real History of World War II?

barron.burrow wrote:

> If Stalin's pact with Hitler in 1939 was intended only to buy time
> against the Nazis, why did the Soviet army invade Poland in 1939 -- at
> the same time as the Nazis invaded that non-belligerent country?
>
> And why does your Stalinist historian not mention this Stalinist atrocity?

<much snipped>

I'd like to reply -- briefly -- to this post. It's completely wrong! But the poster can't be blamed entirely, since it reflects the disinformation we have all been taught about the USSR.

Here are a few points:

1. The USSR didn't invade Poland.

By September 17, 1939, when Soviet troops entered Poland, the Soviet government believed that Polish government had already interned itself in Rumania. In fact they had not quite done so, crossing the border into Rumania and internment during the day of September 17, according to a United Press dispatch published on page four of the New York Times on September 18 with a dateline of Cernauti, Rumania. (My thanks to Mr Artur Szulc of Sweden for this citation.)

Without a government, Poland as a state had ceased to exist under international law.

Here's the evidence. It's the official diary -- that is, report -- by Potemkin, the Vice-Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, about his visit with Grzybowski, Polish Ambassador to the USSR, at 3 a.m. on September 17, 1939.

Potemkin wishes to hand a note to the Polish Government. At first Grzybowski refuses to accept it. But when pressed, Grzybowski admits that he has no contact with his government. Grzybowski says that two days before he had been told to contact his government "via Bucharest" -- i.e. in the Rumanian capital -- but he is not certain that he could do even that.

This is published in the book Katyn' -- Plenniki Neob"iavlennoi Voiny on pp. 65-67. This is a ferociously anti-Soviet, Polish nationalist work. The document is genuine.

Some Polish nationalists make the claim that Polish President Mos'cicki appointed Raczkiewicz the new President on September 17, 1939. The purpose of this charade is to pretend that there always was a valid Polish government. Of course the real point is that the Polish Ambassador to the USSR had already been informed that his government was in Rumania, and did not know how to contact them.

However, the New York Times reported on October 1, 1939 that Mos'cicki resigned in favor of Raczkiewicz on September 30 in Paris (see the article "Moscicki Resigns", p. 1 )So much for the Polish nationalist claim! But the origin of this claim is interesting. Moscicki had been interned in Rumania. As such, he was not able to exercise any governmental functions. So the Rumanian government invented the fiction that he had appointed Raczkiewicz just before crossing the border, on September 17. So the legalism was to save Rumania from German protests that, in permitting Moscicki to resign while interned, Rumania was guilty of "an act not in accordance with neutrality." See the A.P. story in the New York Times October 1, 1939, p. 47.

On October 2, 1939 the NYT ran a story that reads, in part,

Polish refugees of all political opinions, even supporters of the regime [i.e. the Government in exile - GF], are now convinced that had the government remained and had the highest army leaders stayed at their posts Russia might not have marched and certainly would not have had the formal excuse of advancing into a country abandoned by its government. (Jerzy Szapiro, "Polish Government Now Blamed for Nation's Military Collapse", October 2, 1939, p. 8. It is subtitled: "Failure of Moscicki Regime to Remain in Warsaw Seen as Vital Factor." Emphasis added, GF)

2. This wasn't done "at the same time" as the Nazis, who invaded on September 1, more than two weeks earlier.

Had the Soviet Union wanted to divide up Poland with Nazi Germany it would have invaded Poland at the same time as the Nazis.

This is obvious! A simultaneous invasion would have forced the Polish Army to fight on two fronts at once.

But the USSR did not do that. Furthermore, the Soviets either withdrew troops from Poland's Eastern frontier, or at least announced that they do so (see next post, below). This was, of course, a friendly act towards Poland, and a hostile act towards Germany.

3. The Soviet-German Nonaggression Pact had been made TO DEFEND Poland. It included a line of Soviet interest, beyond which German troops could not pass in the event of war.

The point here was that, if the Polish army were beaten, it and the Polish government could retreat beyond the line of Soviet interest, and so find shelter, since Hitler had agreed not to penetrate further into Poland than that line.

But the Polish government -- fascist, anticommunist, racist, as bad as they get -- didn't do this! Rather than fight, it fled, leaving its citizens to the mercies of the Germans.

At this point Hitler had nobody to negotiate a cease-fire, or treaty, with. There was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border -- unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, which it did.

At the end of September a new secret agreement was concluded, under which the Soviet line of interest was approximately along the lines of territory the Polish imperialists had seized (with French help) from the Russian Republic (not the USSR until 1923) by the Treaty of Riga in 1920. In this territory Poles were a minority.

5. On November 22 1939 a Polish government in exile was established in Angers, France. And what did it do? It made war on the USSR!

On April 16 1940 at a session of the Polish consultative body of the highest level -- the "Rada Narodowa" ["People's Council" or "People's Soviet" -- GF] in Angiers, France, a very lively and prolonged discussion took place on this question. A. Zalesski, Minister of Foreign Affairs, made a presentation which claimed that Poland was in a state of war with Russia if not de jure, then de facto , and that all of Polish society considered the aggression of the USSR as another partition of Poland and equated September 1 [date of German invasion] with September 17 [the date the Soviet army entered Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine - GF]. In answer to questions Vice-Minister Z. Gralinski explained that there had been no formal declaration of war: "In all our declarations we take the position that a state of war exists between Poland and the USSR", although it is necessary to consider the fact that Great Britain and France remain neutral with respect to it [the USSR].

For those who read Russian, the evidence is here, at note 105. This was not a formal declaration of war, but a state of war existed, as the Polish diplomats quoted here acknowledge.

Since the USSR did not recognize the Polish government-in-exile, and since the state of Poland no longer existed, this left the Polish soldiers in Soviet captivity in a kind of limbo. Formally they were not prisoners of war, since formally there was no war. So the Polish officers were "internees" whose legal status was unclear at best. The Soviets did permit most enlisted men to return home, if they wanted to go.

How do you know all this is true? Here's how: The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.

However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939  the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it. A very different response! which tells us how the League viewed the Soviet action in the case of Poland.

France had a mutual defense treaty with Poland, as did the UK. How come they didn't fight the Nazis over Poland? How come they didn't invade Western Germany?

There are two views. I don't know which is true. Here they are, as I understand them.

1. The Mutual defense treaty obliged the French (I don't know about the Brits) to start military action within two weeks. However, 2 weeks after the start of the war, there was no longer a Polish government to help!

Maybe that's the case. I don't have the text here.

2. The French (and Brits) were hoping some kind of war would break out between the Soviets and the Germans. That was the whole point of British-French diplomacy throughout the '30s, of course. Invading Western Germany, though it would help the Poles, would also help the USSR, and the French and Brits didn't want to do this, no matter what!

In fact the French and Brits came close to invading the USSR over Finland in February 1940, even though aiding Finland meant aiding one of Nazi Germany's closest allies against the main anti-German force in the world. That's how much the French and Brits hated the USSR!

Whatever the reason, the ensuing period became known as the "Phony War."

Finally: a word on the pamphlet. It's a propaganda pamphlet that proves nothing. Why should anybody "believe" -- or, for that matter, "disbelieve", its contents?

Research can't be avoided, if you want to know the truth! Pamphlets like this one just get in the way -- as they are no doubt meant to do. They are not intended to be objective! So, forget it.

There are lots of books and research, in many languages, about the Soviet occupation of Poland. Go do the reading! But be objective, or you will only produce nonsense, more propaganda.

Sincerely,

Grover Furr

Re: The Real History of World War II?

In reply to my own post, I should add the following clarification:

The Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany that included a Soviet sphere of influence, beyond which the Wehrmacht would not go in the event of war, and so behind which a Polish government and army, if they were in retreat, could have taken refuge.

I wrote that, and it is true. Anybody who reads the text of the pact can see it.

There are some other details I could add. For example, the Soviets EITHER withdrew some troops from Poland's eastern border upon the outbreak of the German-Polish war, OR they wrote in the press that they had done so (I don't know which). Germany protested. For those who read Russian the document is here, from the same ferociously anti-Soviet book I quoted above.

Of course German ambassador to Moscow protested because the Germans realized this was a gesture of support to Poland. A Soviet withdrawal from Poland's Eastern border would free up Polish troops to move to the WESTERN border, where the German Army was attacking.

But that's not my point here, which is the following interesting issue.

The Polish fascist government STARTED World War II. Yes, they did.

1. Poland was offered a nonaggression pact with the USSR, which it refused, over and over again.

Had it accepted, the USSR along with the French would have attacked Germany. Hitler would either have been defeated or, most likely, would not have attacked Poland at all.

2. Poland should have been prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials. Here's why.

The Nuremburg Trials were aimed at those countries which committed aggression, including against Czechoslovakia. That was Hitler, of course.

But it was also Poland! the Poles seized the Teczin area of Czechoslovakia as the Nazis moved into the Sudetenland in 1938.

This was not permitted under the Munich Agreements (which were an immoral sellout, intended to encourage Hitler to "move East" and attack the USSR, of course). But France and the UK let them do it anyway. It was Hitler who said "Whoa!" after awhile. (Hungary seized some Czech land too).

3. Hitler, evil as he was, actually did not want to fight Poland. What he wanted was territorial concessions for Germany with respect to Danzig and East Prussia -- a "corridor", extraterritoriality for Germans in it, etc.

Most of the (bourgeois) world thought this pretty reasonable. Danzig was mainly German. East Prussia was ALL German, and divided from the rest of Germany by Poland.

But the Polish fascist generals said "No deal!" and, mobilized! A recognized declaration of war (since WWI).

Bad as Hitler was, the prewar Polish regime was just as bad -- only a lot stupider, and a lot weaker.

Grover Furr

Barron Burrow's response to my posts on the USSR and Poland are factually wrong. In addition, they are full of insults, ad-hominem attacks, and debaters' tactics like "changing the subject."

Maybe Burrow will change, though it doesn't seem likely.

However, others may benefit from an objective discussion of the situation, since it is the subject of so much falsification.

It'd be bad enough if it were only the right-wingers who lied about this history. But the liberal elitists are no better, and not even much different.

Therefore, even honest people, who would like to know the truth and have the integrity to face the facts even when they do not "fit" their own preconceived ideas, are kept ignorant.

So if you are such a person, this reply is for you. You know who you are. And we can all see who is NOT interested in the truth and objectivity.

BB states:

> The historical documents, revealed since the collapse of the Soviet
> Union, show that under the Hitler-Stalin Pact, August, 1939, HITLER AND STALIN
> AGREED TO INVADE POLAND.

Either BB did not bother to read the text of the Pact -- which is known to history, and also to Wikipedia, as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" -- or he did read it, and is deliberately lying.

Here's the link to the English translation of the Pact, as given on the Wikipedia page BB refers to. Read it! There is NO "agreement to invade Poland."

BB states:

> Although the Poles seized Teczin (according to Wikipedia this amounted to 1% of Czech
> territory); but (a) since Hitler had taken the rest of Czechoslovakia already
> (and as a result Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist)

BB is lying -- that is, making it up.

The Nazis moved into the Sudetenland section of Czechoslovakia in early October 1938. Czechoslovakia continued to exist until March 1939.

BB states:

> the idea of Poland being prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials is ridiculous -- since by 1945 POLAND
> WAS OCCUPIED BY STALIN (and remained so occupied by the Soviets until 1989).

Occupation is irrelevant. Germany was also occupied, but the former Nazi rulers were prosecuted at Nuremberg.

The former Polish fascist rulers, the "London" government, successor to the regimes of Rydz-Smigly, Bor-Komarowsky and Beck, should have been prosecuted too.

BB states:

> Another error Furr makes, is that several times he refers to "Western Germany".
> But ...Furr forgets that "Western" Germany was created post-WW2 as a result of Stalin's
> continued occupation of the whole of EASTERN Germany (which Stalinists called
> the 'German Democratic Republic').

Either BB is lying again, or just can't read.

I referred to "Western Germany" -- the Western part of Germany as opposed to the Eastern part bordering on Poland. I never referred to postwar Europe at all.

BB states:

> The statement I made originally, and which Furr contested, was: "If Stalin's
> pact with Hitler in 1939 was intended only to buy time against the Nazis, why
> did the Soviet army invade Poland in 1939 -- at
> the same time as the Nazis invaded that non-belligerent country?"
>
> This claim of mine is irrefutable!

It is not only not "irrefutable", it is completely false.

BB is either lying again, or has just been too lazy to look up what really happened.

Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. On September 15 or 16 the Polish government had fled the country and interned itself in Rumania, leaving Poland without a government.

At this point the Soviet Union sent in troops to prevent the German army from coming right up to the Soviet border.

This was not an "invasion." Poland, as a state, did not exist once its government had fled, because there was no government to defend its citizens or negotiate with foreign governments.

The Soviets did the right thing, obviously. In addition, they had no choice.

I pointed out that the division into spheres of influence made in the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a PROTECTION for Poland, on the part of the Soviet Union.

If the Polish government and military were defeated, it could retreat into the Soviet sphere of influence, and the German army could not follow.

Nobody foresaw that the cowardly Polish government would desert their own people and intern themselves in a neutral country, where they could not function as a government.

To explain (again): Rumania was neutral. For Rumania to let the Polish government function as such would have been an act of hostility against Germany.

In November 1939 a Polish government in exile was set up in France (later it moved to England). But France was already formally at war with Germany, so this act of hostility didn't change anything.

So from September 15 or 16 till sometime in November 1939 there was NO government of Poland.

The Wikipedia page, to which BB constantly refers, also states:

> On 17 September, Molotov declared on the radio that all treaties
> between the Soviet Union and Poland were now void,[g] because the Polish
> government had abandoned its people and effectively ceased to exist.

Quite true! So why didn't BB see it?

The Polish government was uniquely cowardly in that NO other government interned itself in a neutral country. All others either surrendered, or fled to an allied country to continue the fight.

BB states:

> Furr wrote: "The Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi
> Germany that included a Soviet sphere of influence..."
> What a ghastly liar! ...

It's BB who is lying. READ THE TEXT OF THE PACT! (Link above)

Here's what the text of the pact states:

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

"Spheres of influence". See?

That should be enough to establish that BB's version is completely false.

It would be nice if it were only a matter of BB's ignorance, dishonesty, or both. But in fact we are all taught lies about the USSR and Stalin especially.

Hey, there was a bitter Cold War, remember? So the capitalists lied about the communists. This is just one small example.

Here's the kicker: the capitalists still lie about the Soviet Union and Stalin.

(So do the Trotskyists, who in this respect are not Marxists or communists at all, but dogmatic ANTIcommunists.)

There's also Polish nationalism, which is horrible. Bad as US nationalism is, Polish nationalism is far more obviously right-wing stuff, very much like the German nationalism of the Nazi days, and closely akin to the super pro-fascist nationalism in the Baltic States and Ukraine today.

Nobody is perfect, or even close, and Stalin wasn't either. But he, and the USSR, were by a huge measure better than the rest of the "Allies". Better for the working class of the world, and of course the hundreds of millions enslaved in the colonial empires of the "freedom-loving" West.

All the documents about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and all the diplomacy and history surrounding the beginning of WW2, are all published and available. There is simply no excuse for repeating lies, as BB does.

BB raises the Katyn issue. Once again, he knows nothing about it -- nothing accurate, anyway. More Cold War and Polish fascist lies.

Here's something I wrote, and put on line, about this very interesting historical problem. I'm NOT going to get into it here, because it takes a LOT of work -- reading -- for anybody to have anything interesting at all to say.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806r.html

A final piece of advice for BB: LOSE THE ATTITUDE! Get some humility. Spend a LOT of time reading!

Try for some objectivity! Consider the possibility that YOU MAY BE MISTAKEN! Believe me, a real search for the truth will make you humble. HUMILITY IS GOOD! You do NOT "know it all".

Whether BB can even hear this, or is beyond help, I don't know. But it's good advice for all of us.

Sincerely,

Grover Furr