Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide

[Heresson]

What do You expect when someone believes all the crappy stuff Stalin and his band invented and claims that poland is responsible for ww2, anchluss, Muenchen and God knows what more?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Serb

If Iraq had attacked Iran and grabbed parts of it and then later US attack Iraq and at the same time Iran move its forces to occupy lands which Iraq took from them earlier, I wouldn't mind.
Is it Iran's fault that Iraq attacked them and stole thier territories? Why it can't use the situation to return lands that righfully belong to Iran?
Heresson gave us few fascinating metaphors about robbing the house and killing the person.
I can give another metaphor:
Imagine two persons in 1921, person "P" and "S". Person S went complete crazy and start to fight with himself and at the same time gang of mofos attacked him to rob him and heal him from his madness permanently (more probably by killing him p). Person P usually lacks the balls to attack person S, but this time situation is extremely favorable for person P. So, person P attacks and able to defeat person S. As result of his victory person P tooks some of person S weapons.
Years passed. Person S defeated his madness and became a whole again. He also defeted gang of mofos who tried to kill him. Then in 1933 new person N was born, he immidiently declared that he is going to kill person S, because he don't like him and becuase he needs its house. Person S tried to create wide coalition against person N, but persons whom he offered to create alliance, such as persons U and person F were members of that gang who tried to kill him recently and they declined the offer. He offered alliance to person P, he declined it too. Then in 1939, person N attacked person P and killed him. Person S knowing that person N is going to kill him too, quickly explored the corpse of person P and took the weapons which person P stolen from person S in 1921. Person S thought like-"what the heck? it's my weapons after all, and I need it more than this dead mofo who stole it from me 18 years ago".


Yes.

He soldl grain to buy equipment needed to create heavy industry to prepare country for war vs. nazi. But it was only one of the reasons for famine.

1) It's a big mistake for US. Poland is worse ally one could have. Russians know this for sure, now it's your turn to find this out.
2) It's a big mistake for Poland. In case of war we will need a buffer zone to protect core Russia from land invasion. So basicaly we'll just nuke our neighbour NATO members, turn their lands into radiactive wasteland. And Poland will be the first.


They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master.

thanks! I guess I don't have any serious disagreement on these issues afterall.

With respect to the ongoing debate about Polish/USSR relations from the end of ww1 to the end of ww2, I'd have to say that so far I am finding that unambiguous primary sources cannot seem to be found to cast light on the major areas of disagreement.

The curzon line is well doccumented (for instance at Wiki article on Curzon line) and there is plenty of data doccumenting the fact that the Poles were in the minority east of that line. However, while the British proposed the Curzon line (hence the name) for Polands eastern border, the Treaty of Versailles only stated that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." It is also a fact that the USSR was indeed condemned not just by the league of nations but individually by a constellation of governments for its invasion of Finland but I could find no similar level of condemnation of it's invasion of Poland during the German invasion.

I also found some record of the diaries purporting to document Polish/German diplomacy but historians seriously doubt their authenticity. I also found that no primary sources are available describing the exact terms of the pact between Germany and USSR so that when historians surmise that a division of Poland had been previously negotiated this is purely an assumption.


It seems to me that the only real grevience that the USSR visited on the Poles was forcing them to have a socialist government after the war and also standing passively by during the warsaw revolt when they were clearly more than close enough to Warsaw to easily support the revolt at the time. However, the territorial adjustments don't seem any different from the way Poland treated other countries when it found occasion to invade them between ww1 and ww2.


just my 2 cents

[Heresson]

The curzon line is well doccumented (for instance at Wiki article on Curzon line) and there is plenty of data doccumenting the fact that the Poles were in the minority east of that line.

They were a majority in eastern lithuania (including Vilnius), Grodno region, small region west to Minsk, Lwow,
and Podole region, and these are east to Curzon line

I could find no similar level of condemnation of it's invasion of Poland during the German invasion.

What Serb can't understand is that's not condemnation by League of Nations that constitutes an agression

However, the territorial adjustments don't seem any different from the way Poland treated other countries when it found occasion to invade them between ww1 and ww2.

Elaborate, please.
For Poland, territorial quarrels with
USSR, Lithuania,
Tchechoslovakia,
and Germany close after ww1 were simply
result of Poland regaining its independance. It didn't have fixed
borders, and creating them had to be in conflict with Germany and other, also newly borned, states around.
The only "attack" between ww1 and ww2 was the case of Cieszyn, of Tchechoslovakia

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
So, person P attacks and able to defeat person S. As result of his victory person P tooks some of person S weapons.

1) Person S, in his madness, planned to attack person P
2) Those weapons were stolen from person P earlier, and person P just got part of them back

He offered alliance to person P, he declined it too. Then in 1939, person N attacked person P and killed him.

Person P, seriously wounded, escaped to person F and later E and together with person E defended against person N. Meanwhile, person S and person N joyfully looted his house.

2) It's a big mistake for Poland. In case of war we will need a buffer zone to protect core Russia from land invasion. So basicaly we'll just nuke our neighbour NATO members, turn their lands into radiactive wasteland. And Poland will be the first.

Serb at his finest. Bah bah bah, we'll nuke them, tratatatata. Like in kindergarden

They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master. [/QUOTE]

Yes

Which ones?

They do not need any justification actually. They always serve to strongest master.

Geronimo, if You wish to learn something from Serb, I pity You. Here is another great fruit of his mind and I doubt it will ever get any better.

[Heresson]

When it comes to ethnic stuff, I can't find my etnic atlas, but when it was about population, it looked about like that by wojewodztwa:
Red ones are majorly (over 60%) Polish
Yellow one is majorly Byelorussian: actually, the citizens of this swampy regions didn't declare any nationality or language (they just answered "the local one"), but actually they were Byelorussians
Green ones are wojewodztwa inhabited majorly by Ukrainians: in both Poles were a definite, some 15% minority.
Podole region was about half-to half Polish and Ukrainian. more people declared Polish language, but only a bit, and because Jews largely declared it.
In two NE regions, Poles were a majority, I think it was about 3/4 in Vilnius region and 2/3 in Nowogrodek one.
By pink, I (schematically of course) pointed regions with large Polish minority/majority behind the boarders
The line is Curzon line

I will scan a more detailed map later on.
it will look less favourably to Poles, as in the East, they were more dispersed and more often lived in cities than Byelorussians or Ukrainians

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heresson

Geronimo, if You wish to learn something from Serb, I pity You. Here is another great fruit of his mind and I doubt it will ever get any better.

I honestly have learned a great deal from reading Serbs perspective. His claims and conclusions are very often new to me but the thing that makes them different is that unlike most everyone else who makes radical claims, when I check out Serb's info it generally checks out and lacks blatant falsehoods. He makes radical statments but doesn't seem to pull them out of his arse. This is part of the reason I asked him those questions. I wanted to see if, for instance he would claim that stalin hadn't sold food abroad in the midst of a famine. In light of his responses, I'm inclined to respectfully disagree with your assumption that Serb simply spouts stalinist propaganda. So please do not pity me for asking for more information from Serb, so far it has lead me to quite a few new and verifiable insights.

This isn't to say that I doubt your own credibility however. In fact I share your assumption that Stalin probably formally negotiated the division of Poland with the nazis at some time immediately prior to the invasion. However I also recognize that I can only assume that this is the case because neither Stalin nor Hitler left complete impartial records of their foreign policy machinations.

As to your request that I elaborate on my comparison of Soviet territorial grabs vs Polish territorial grabs inbetween the wars I admit that there are not many instances of Polish military annexation of territories in that brief period but my point was only that in both cases the governments unilaterally made a decision to claim sovereignty over new territories and in both cases both countries managed to avoid censure from other countries for those acquisitions.

[Geronimo]

Here's a ethnicity map of Europe 1919-1924 that I scanned from The Time's Atlas of World History, notice that only in the extreme NE do Poles constitute of a majority of the population in the teritories in question.

[Geronimo]

Ok, that map is just too damn small, this one should be a little more legible:

[Heresson]

And in Podolia. This map is not in big disaccordance with mine, but You should not base your opinions on it. It's very schematical. As You see, according to this map, there are no Poles in Upper Silesia or Mazury region. Eastern, southern and Bessarabian boarders of Ukrainian nation, and the same for eastern boarders of Byelorusian nation, they are simply led along the boarder; the same for Dobrudza,
and also for Slovenia - no Slovenians in Celowiec/Klagenfurt region according to this map.
Also, it limits Kurds to completely SE Turkey, which is also not correct.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
lacks blatant falsehoods.

You mean, like He claims that it were Germans behind Katyn mass murders, though even Russia officially admitted it was Soviet stuff, that's not a blatant falsehood?
You mean that when He claims it is Poland responsible for anschluss, Muenchen, II world war, that is not a blatant falsehood?
Like when He claims that what Soviets did to Poland in 1939 was not agression?
Like when He claims eastern boarders of Poland were settled by Versailles treaty?
Like when He claims that Soviets saved Lithuania from Polish agression?
Like when He says Poland is a servant of world mights?
Oh please...

He makes radical statments but doesn't seem to pull them out of his arse.

No, I don't think He makes them up. He copies them from some Soviet schoolbook or something

propaganda. So please do not pity me for asking for more information from Serb, so far it has lead me to quite a few new and verifiable insights.

Like what?

As to your request that I elaborate on my comparison of Soviet territorial grabs vs Polish territorial grabs inbetween the wars I admit that there are not many instances of Polish military annexation of territories in that brief period but my point was only that in both cases the governments unilaterally made a decision to claim sovereignty over new territories and in both cases both countries managed to avoid censure from other countries for those acquisitions.

Poland was claiming lands shortly after it got independant, and was fighting for its independance and its boarders. Also, it never threatened some country's existance itself
Soviets, on the other hand, were annecting entire countries years after its boarders were settled, and were making ethnical cleansings on them.
That's a difference.

[Heresson]

On the closer map I can see that my statesments regarding Upper Silesia and Mazury were true. The same when it comes to Spisz and Orawa and Czadca. The way they showed the northern part is correct, but southern, it is more complicated; Poles were more dispersed there, and such smaller points can not be shown on such map.
I'll post two maps when I do scans (and if I find the atlases, two of them I lost in Warsaw).
One would be national, and the other depicts religion, but as Roman catholics in the East were Poles, and in several cases Lithuanians, and Orthodox and greek Catholics were Ukrainians, it should
be a good map, it is very precise.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heresson

You mean, like He claims that it were Germans behind Katyn mass murders, though even Russia officially admitted it was Soviet stuff, that's not a blatant falsehood?
You mean that when He claims it is Poland responsible for anschluss, Muenchen, II world war, that is not a blatant falsehood?
Like when He claims that what Soviets did to Poland in 1939 was not agression?
Like when He claims eastern boarders of Poland were settled by Versailles treaty?
Like when He claims that Soviets saved Lithuania from Polish agression?
Like when He says Poland is a servant of world mights?
Oh please...

The Katyn massacre was indeed at first only doccumented by the Nazis. It is true that so much incontrovertible physical and doccumentary evidence from so many sources has come out especially in recent times that it is now unreasonable to argue that Stalin did not order the mass execution of several thousand Polish prisoners at Katyn but I do not think Serb has spoken to this later evidence as yet. It is clear from links such as this Moscow News article regarding Katyn massacre that Russians currently take the matter of the Katyn massacre very seriously indeed.

His claims about Polish responsibility for the war should be taken no differently from claims that Neville Chamberlain is responsible for the war. Nobody would seriously argue that Neville Chamberlain rather than Hitler was responsible for the outbreak of ww2 and yet blame is placed upon Chamberlain all the same reflecting the fact that through his errors Hitler was able to gain a free hand in central and eastern europe. In this view Chamberlain is an indirect cause for the war while the Nazis were the direct cause. It is clear from Serbs post that he would still regard the Nazis themselves as directly to blame for ww2 while arguing that Polands diplomacy, like Neville Chamberlain was an indirect cause of the war as well.

He claims that USSR occupation of East Poland after the Nazis invaded west Poland does not constitute agression any different from the agression Poland visited upon Byelorussia and Ukraine. I don't see how you have clearly refuted this. Our imprecise ethnic maps seem to show that the areas in question were of mixed ethnic heritage and both the USSR and post ww1 Poland were integrated as political entities at about the same time with poorly delineated borders. Poland unilaterally laid claim to this disputed area by means of military occupation taking advantage of Soviet chaos following the revolution and later the USSR reversed the situation taking advantage of the choas following the Nazi invasion of Poland. These events transpired less than a generation apart so where is there any great fault to lay on either side?

Serb may have claimed that the Eastern borders were settled by the Versailles Treaty but I hardly regard this as blatant falsehood because a considerable effort was made to establish the Curzon line as Poland's eastern frontier in the drafting of that treaty and prior to the settlement of the question by military force most contemporary maps designated the curzon line as the frontier.

I hope you are not claiming that the USSR was so above dabbling in the intrigues of it's neighbors that it would not consider measures such as a security agreement with Lithuania. This claim of Serb's would be difficult indeed to label as a blatant falsehood, the fact that lithuania almost certainly had little reason to expect an invasion from Poland notwithstanding.

Lastly, that comment about serving the most powerful master clearly belongs to the insult/troll category so it hardly seems justified for me to jump on that as an example of a blatant faslehood. That's more like when people label the US a terrorist nation. Inflamatory perhaps but not really a serious claim.

Originally posted by Heresson

No, I don't think He makes them up. He copies them from some Soviet schoolbook or something


Like what?


Poland was claiming lands shortly after it got independant, and was fighting for its independance and its boarders. Also, it never threatened some country's existance itself
Soviets, on the other hand, were annecting entire countries years after its boarders were settled, and were making ethnical cleansings on them.
That's a difference.

Certainly had the Polish conquests not been reversed it would have seriously threatened the independant existance of Belorussia and maybe even Ukraine as well. the ethnic cleasing wasn't a russian thing, it was a Stalin thing. He valued his own personal power and security and nothing else. To him ethnic rebellion was just another kind of rebellion and he was just as keen to nip it in the bud as any other kind of revolt. It wasn't out of a desire to gain real estate for Russians.


Anyway I hope you don't think I'm simply rejecting your view of the situation. I agree with quite a bit of what you've had to say and certainly I share your disgust with the legacy of the communists in Eastern Europe.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I do not think Serb has spoken to this later evidence as yet.

Well, He should

arguing that Polands diplomacy, like Neville Chamberlain was an indirect cause of the war as well.

Perhaps Polish diplomacy could make more, but I doubt it. After Hitler got to power, Poland proposed preemptive strike on him to France. |France declined, and was left between two powers hostile to each other, but also hostile to Poland. There was no easy choice, Poland decided not to engage with any of them

Poland unilaterally laid claim to this disputed area by means of military occupation taking advantage of Soviet chaos following the revolution and later the USSR reversed the situation taking advantage of the choas following the Nazi invasion of Poland. These events transpired less than a generation apart so where is there any great fault to lay on either side?

First of all, SU wasn't helpless at this time. It had 3 mln army that almost crushed Poland. And it willed it, especially that earlier it crushed independant Ukraine in Kiev. Poland was gonna be next, as a stop on Soviet way to Germany. It was not a war about one region or another; Soviets have prepared a Polish communist gouverment and proclaimed it when they entered Bialystok. SU wanted to annex Poland as a next republic.
Poland didn't want to destroy Soviet Union, bah, it even halted offensive when the Whites were being too successful. It didn't even take all the territory Soviet diplomats offered it in Riga. Poland wanted to take back some of the lands that Russia had taken from it during the partages.
There were no Russians on these grounds, and Soviets weren't quite representative for Byelorussians and Ukrainians, not for Russians even.
In 1939, Soviets didn't just take some grounds. They took everything up to Vistula; lands that under no conditions could be treaten as Ukrainian or Byelorussian. The most important thing, however, is that Soviets with Germans destroyed Poland completely, if its gouverment haven't settled in the West; also, they and Germans agreed that no buffor Polish state shall be made by any of the sides;
SU didn't just take disputed areas, it participated in what seemed to be annihilation of Polish state.
Taken into account that they later were killing the officers and higher class of Poland, and that the rest they were throwing somewhere on steppes to die or dwell in inhumane conditions, You may say that Soviets also participated in annihilation of Polish nation, or just the active part of it.

Serb may have claimed that the Eastern borders were settled by the Versailles Treaty but I hardly regard this as blatant falsehood because a considerable effort was made to establish the Curzon line as Poland's eastern frontier in the drafting of that treaty and prior to the settlement of the question by military force most contemporary maps designated the curzon line as the frontier.

That the West willed it to be the boarder, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't

I hope you are not claiming that the USSR was so above dabbling in the intrigues of it's neighbors that it would not consider measures such as a security agreement with Lithuania.

Of course it would. And would later annex it, as it did.

Inflamatory perhaps but not really a serious claim.

I'm not so sure.

Certainly had the Polish conquests not been reversed it would have seriously threatened the independant existance of Belorussia and maybe even Ukraine as well.

Byelorus was not an independant state.
And when it comes to Ukraine, I dare to remind You Poland was allied with Petlura and that is why it captured Kiev with him. Poland wanted Galicia, perhaps Wolyn. and nothing more. Again I remind You Poland declined lavish Soviet offers when it comes to moving the boarder even more east.
The ones that put down the independance of Ukraine were Soviets.

the ethnic cleasing wasn't a russian thing, it was a Stalin thing. He valued his own personal power and security and nothing else. To him ethnic rebellion was just another kind of rebellion and he was just as keen to nip it in the bud as any other kind of revolt. It wasn't out of a desire to gain real estate for Russians.

I didn't claim it was!
But, on the other hand, doesn't Serb claim SU was just a next Russian gouverment?

[Heresson]

Text of the Ribbentrop - Molotov treaty

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

[Heresson]

http://home.swipnet.se/nordling/Stalinspeech.html

something more