Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Were the Poles the Greatest Profiteers of the World War 2?

Discussion in 'Post War 1945-1955' started by Tamino, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    Obviously because Stalin thought it was in his and the Soviets interest to do so. Part of the problem with your position is that you seam to think that Poland was truly an independent country in the aftermath of WWII. History clearly illustrates that the Warsaw Pact "countries" were far from independent
     
  2. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    I've avoided nothing of the sort; That was explained earlier; Stalin compensated for the lands incorporated into Lithuania, Belorus, and Ukraine, which did not belong to those "nations" prior to 1939. Which only Stalin could do, as it was the Red Army ruling all these areas. Not the Polish Army. Not the US Army. Not the British Army. Doing so placated the Western Allies to some degree, who were mostly concerned for Polish independence. Poles were forcefully moved into the new Western region of Poland, by the Red Army. Or they were sent to SIberia.

    Why do you focus on the issue of Poles, and not Czech misdeeds when expelling Germans from Sudetenland?

    It was said before; after the brutality of the war, the reckoning was always going to be brutal. There was never going to be any measure of individual justice. It could be seen as a collective punishment. None of the Germans expelled wandered around bemoaning the injustices done to Jews, Poles, Greeks, Russians the French, or anyone else. It's always their suffering we should consider. Well, all I can say is; suck it up.

    Hell, even the Dutch expelled Germans. Germans had really outworn their welcome everywhere.

    Could be, that's what you get for voting National Socialist:
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Thanks for very informative map but you should have known that the above statement is wrong: Stalin took what he considered correct: lands that in fact belonged to Ukrainians and Belorussians. We know that the Curzon line is the best to cut between Poles and the others. That wasn't a bargain, Stalin just took what he considered as Soviet possession and hasn't opposed a "compensation" proposed by the western allies.

    And why do you use quotation marks when you make a reference to nations other than "Poles"? Do you think these people are just pseudo nations, "former Poles" so to say? I hope I am wrong this time.
     
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    I think you opened the door on this by mentioning the pre-Versailles empires and how they treated minorities, and yes i watch too much 'Law & Order' reruns :)
     
  5. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    Well, if you can find an independent nation called Belorus prior to 1945, you are welcome to show me. While the idea of a nation of "white" Russians had been around for a while before that, they were never really their own nation until very recently (edit; Just remembered the Germans set up a Belorus state in the wake of the Russian Armistice; it didn't last very long). Exactly when they achieved nationhood is debateable; they were a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, although few would really call them independent then. Ukraine was not independent in 1939, so can't really be called a nation when making reference to that time, however much it also deserved to be; the Soviet Russians were the ones seeing to that.

    So your reference to my above quotation marks is purely on that basis, and not on the existence of Poles within their borders or not. It was the sorry state of affairs brought on by (in their particular case) Russian Imperialism.

    As regards to the drawing of the border; it was entirely in the hands of Stalin. There really was nothing the Western Allies could do to enforce or "encourage" anything else; they still desperately wanted Soviet aide in the East against Japan.
     
  6. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Essentials first:
    Let's be precise: it was a pole Mikolajczyk who was drawing western Border of Poland, not Stalin. He just didn't care. Again, a quote from Matthew Minutes, to support this claim:

    STALIN I prefer that the war continue a little longer and give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of Germany. I asked Mikolajczyk what frontier he wanted. Mikolajczyk delighted to bear of a western frontier to the river Neisse. I must say that I will maintain this line and ask this conference to support it. There are two Neisse rivers. The east and the west. I favour the west.

    End of quote 1.

    The quote below can only come from the the mouth of an ardent Pole who refuses to recognize existence of any other nation between rivers Spree (*) and Volga except Polish.

    (*) For those who do not know: river Spree flows through Berlin.


     
  7. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    What a load of crap:

    Stalin "I favour the West..."

    and it was he that ultimately decided.

    Your willingness to assign motives to others, in contrast of evidence offered, has been noted before. You are notorious for doing such when people disagree with your views. Such juvenile and trivial behaviour is really quite laughable.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,677
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Since we are being precise....

    If Mikolajczyk is telling Stalin what he wants...The why is Mikolajczyk delighted to hear of a western frontier to the river Neisse?

    Thus, it appears that Mikolajczyk was being told by Stalin...not asked...what the border of a "new" Poland would be. Therefore, a Pole is not the one deciding the borders.

    So, the quote does not support your position.
     
  9. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    At Potsdam, Stalin argued for the Oder–Neisse line on the grounds that the Polish Government demanded this frontier and that there were no longer any Germans left east of this line.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,677
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Unfortunately, the Polish government is not in a position to demand anything, especially from the Soviets.

    The Polish government demanding something from Stalin, and expecting to get it - unless Stalin considers it to be in his best interest - is quite laughable.
     
  11. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    It seems to be your personal opinion. Please, reveal your sources or this is your yet another guess.
     
  12. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,677
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    You already quoted it...Let me refresh your memory


    The Poles were not demanding, they were not asked, but they were being told that this is what they will be getting.
     
  13. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Thats just yours missinterpretation. I will get back with relevant sources. Good night dear Takao.
     
  14. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,677
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Reading, PA
  15. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    I'm beginning to recognise that Tamino is an avid follower of the BdV, The Federation of Expellees, the charter of which states; "the right to the homeland is recognized and carried out as one of the fundamental rights of mankind given by God", and which has featured "former" Nazis, such as judge Hans Krüger (the first president of BdV).

    Weird how Hans Krüger suddenly adopted that creed, after a decade of dispossessing Jews, Gypsies (and others) and enforcing race laws. Disgusting that he was allowed to continue his career unhindered by his past.

    Assuming Hans suddenly found religion, God and morality (to say nothing of a sense of justice....) in his life, can someone please point out to me the relevant passage in the Bible's new testament, where this "right to the homeland" is explicitly granted?
     
  16. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,587
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Well done my friend. I will read carefully that conversation about whether Poland had territorial plans against Germany.

    However, please note that this theme doesn't go that far to claim that Poles have dragged Germany into the war to gain German territories. I have more modest objective to investigate if Poland succeeded to obtain unreasonably large territories during German period of dire emergency after the fall of the 3rd Reich. It appears that Poles have worked very hard to get German land from both Western allies and the USSR. Historic sources support this line of reasoning.
     
  17. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    Even if that were true, it still wouldn't make the Poles profiteers. So what exactly is your point? Assuming it were true how do you intend to correct this "injustice"? 71 years on, with the vast majority of the expellees dead, the only reason to continue agitating on this score, is to rile nationalistic ire, which is exactly why the far right pedal their propaganda at BdV meetings. This is not a discussion about history (because you wanted your arbitrary cutoff date to hide inconvenient facts), it is actually a discussion intended to sway present attitudes of today.
     
  18. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I was referring to the following statement by GS in post 69.

    "Had the Poles not extended their borders eastwards, they almost certainly would have faced defeat at the hands of the Red Army bent on returning the lands of the old empire to the fold. A speculative comment, but Bolshevik behaviour of the period gives me little indication otherwise."

    History is full of examples where the winner got away with calling "acts of agression" as "justified preventive wars". I do not believe in legittimate "preventive wars", if you have the military strength to attack you also have enough for a good defence and probably to bring your opponent to the negotiang table too if you are truly looking for a solution and not a land grab. Surprise is a big force multiplier but not as big as that assuming you are willing to face the cost of staying mobilized.
    I do not believe the 1919 Red Army would be stopped without some combat but they had a lot of other problems to deal with so without the move to Kiev they may very well have ignored Poland. The Poles by discriminating the ethnic Germas gave Hitler a perfectly good "casus belli", that he chose not to use it and instead fake an attack is more proof of his ultimate insanity.
     
    green slime likes this.
  19. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I fully agree with you here, given Europe's history by chosing the cut off date you can justify almost any borders you want (as a Roman Citizen I have views there most other Europeans are unikely to share :cool: ) And this sort of talk is boderline between historical research and "nationalist rabble rousing" that generally brings up no good. Not many from that generation are still alive, all that remains of the Pola branch of my family is a cousin of my mother, and reestablishing any sort of "justice" is impossible,
    I still remember when we digitlized the wartime records of a bank, that information was kept top secret as it was the only record that could prove the legittimacy of a a survivor's claim, and sometimes claims were as thin as "my great uncle twice removed that died at Auschwitz possibly had an account with you, but all the birth records are gone", so knowing the info we had could open all sort of false claims. Recreating property rights would face similar challenges. BTW lawyers are almost as bad a "rabble rousing politicians" where reopening old wounds are concerned.
     
  20. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    578
    I agree with you in principle, but that is tempered by the fact that everyone in Eastern Europe was land-grabbing at that time. Everyone and his dog were trying to set up various nation states in the vacuum of the collapsing Empires. For certain periods post 1917, there were multiple competing governments in many of these areas, with overlapping claims. Alliances were being made and broken faster than Baghdad Bob could deny the existence of American troops.

    "In late 1917 to early 1918, the UNR for couple of months lost Kiev to the Bolsheviks, but the UNR with Central Powers support controlled of much of Ukraine, pushed the Bolsheviks out of Kiev on March 1, 1918, and forced the Bolsheviks to convene their government in Taganrog, Russia, on the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Congress of Free Hubb'andmen on April 29, 1918 (with the great support of Austrian-German occupants), elected tsarist general P.P.Skoropadsky as Hetman of Ukraine. He proclaimed the overthrow of the Central Rada Government thus suspending the UNR and also outlawed the Communist Party in Ukraine. After the socialist Directorate of Ukraine overthrew the Hetman's government and then reestablished the UNR on November 13–14, 1918, the Bolsheviks forces with support from Moscow renewed their aggression claiming to be led by the government of Ukraine. Ukraine sent a note of protest requesting to cease the hostilities; Sovnarkom first ignored the request and later stated that it has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government declared a war on January 16, 1919. The Bolsheviks amid fluid alliances with various anarchists would eventually defeat the Ukrainian army that was fighting on several fronts simultaneously.
    Meanwhile, the Western Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR) was declared in Lviv on October 19, 1918. Within the ZUNR were the largest oil reserves in Europe. The ZUNR formally (and largely symbolically) joined the UNR in hope to gain some support in the war against Poland."

    From the moment the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed, until 1922 the borders and states themselves were all extremely fluid. Trying to blame one party for this mess is an exercise in oversimplification.

    Basically, the collapse of the Empires allowed these regions to exercise their version of "the Great Game" in their own backyard. All of which ultimately mistrusted each other, and simultaneously were wary of the Russian bear, some tried to manipulate the Bolshevik's; those that did got mauled.
     

Share This Page