Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see anything about any murders in the article you quoted. Did you read it?
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other
issues. [1][9] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among
fighting soldiers and the civilian population. [1]
Yeah, "the issue was settled in 2004," but we are not talking about 2004, but 1939, when the memories of Polish claims to Ukraine were still alive; Stalin didn't want to have Poland as a strong independent state on his border under those circumstances, which is quite understandable.
( You do know that Polish-Russian rivalry goes back in centuries, so it's understandable why Russian Empire being in time in stronger position didn't mind to remove Poland from the map? )
So because Finland was so close it is absolutely ok to attack and take part of Finnish territory???
Not even close to secret paragraphs of Ribbentrop-Molotov and subsequent Russian aggression on Poland.
Hitler attacked Poland together with Stalin. What are you comparing here?
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
Yeah, "the issue was settled in 2004," but we are not talking about 2004, but 1939, when the memories of Polish claims to Ukraine were still alive; Stalin didn't want to have Poland as a strong independent state on his border under those circumstances, which is quite understandable.
( You do know that Polish-Russian rivalry goes back in centuries, so it's understandable why Russian Empire being in time in stronger position didn't mind to remove Poland from the map? )
I have no idea what you are talking about. There was no murder of Soviet military in Polish camps. Stalin simply signed a deal with Butler for another partitioning of Poland. He was the addressor in 1939 and 1940. Only in 1941 he started playing a victim when it was clear Butler doublecrossed him.
Whatever you say it down not Justify Soviet attack on Poland.
This is the problem erasure. You quote some BS from Soviet propaganda book and use them to support even more hillarious claims.
So far we have:
1) Stalin was right to attack and occupy Poland in 1939
2) Stalin was right to attack Finland and Romania in 1940.
3) Stalin was right to install puppet governments in Central Europe against agreements with the allies and wishes of the affected nations
Honestly, with Truman's doctrine in place it's already not so easy to determine who started what first ( after all the Communist parties in France or Italy were in place independently from Stalin, were they not? And the danger of communist takeover in Greece was happening independently from comrade Lenin or Stalin either.)
That's number one, and number two this "offered" to the Soviets aid by the State department wouldn't really have passed the congress to begin with.
( Another thing - I used to be staunch anti-communist, but now when I see the results of corporate take-over around the world, I am not all that sure...)
The Italian Communist party definitely had a lot of independence from Stalin -- though of course it didn't say no to funding from Moscow. It was the exception though in Western Europe. The French Communist Party was typically subservient to Moscow.
And I agree the Soviets weren't getting aid even if they had wanted it -- and Stalin was smart not to fall into that trap -- but he should not have forced the Eastern Bloc to reject the money as well. It left the Eastern Bloc endlessly trying to make up the gap when it was completely impossible for them to do so. Of course that had nothing to do with the DEMISE of Communism, but it meant Eastern Europe would always be the "second world" whether Communism worked or not.
I'm not an anti-communist at all personally. I am a definite admirer of a large social welfare net, and you need only look at the pending extinction of the American Middle Class following 30 years of failed Trickle Down Economics to show that less government regulation does not spread the wealth around. I do not want total Communism but I'd definitely like a mixed economy leaning more toward socialism than what the US currently has.
Sure-sure...
That's why the allies didn't open the second front until the 1944, when the worst for the Russians was already over and they didn't send troops to the Eastern front, where the biggest war theater was taking place.
Stalin was suspicious of the desire of allies to bring Russia and Germany to a conflict, that they would finish each other off.
Communist Russia a "true ally" of Great Britain and the US in particular, that was always allergic to Communism?
Please.
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
So to buy his time he attacked and occupied Poland and then Finland and Romania. That's not "buying time" lol
The Italian Communist party definitely had a lot of independence from Stalin -- though of course it didn't say no to funding from Moscow. It was the exception though in Western Europe. The French Communist Party was typically subservient to Moscow.
And I agree the Soviets weren't getting aid even if they had wanted it -- and Stalin was smart not to fall into that trap -- but he should not have forced the Eastern Bloc to reject the money as well. .
How about giving the Eastern block freedom? That's no good? Why were Russians occupying Central Europe 50 years after the war???
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
He signed a pact with Hitler and attacked Poland, Finland and Romania.
Great. He was so much better than Hitler lol
Sure-sure...
That's why the allies didn't open the second front until the 1944, when the worst for the Russians was already over and they didn't send troops to the Eastern front, where the biggest war theater was taking place.
Stalin was suspicious of the desire of allies to bring Russia and Germany to a conflict, that they would finish each other off.
Communist Russia a "true ally" of Great Britain and the US in particular, that was always allergic to Communism?
Please.
You are trying to explain events from 1939 with events that took place in 1944???? In 1939 the US was still neutral.
How about giving the Eastern block freedom? That's no good? Why were Russians occupying Central Europe 50 years after the war???
That's off topic from what was being debated... I must not be expressing myself well because my arguments keep getting misconstrued
But to answer your question, yes they should have been given a choice. But at the same time look at Communists being forced to leave governments in Western Europe to appease the US -- kind of the opposite side of the same coin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but we are not talking about 2004, but 1939, when the memories of Polish claims to Ukraine were still alive; Stalin didn't want to have Poland as a strong independent state on his border under those circumstances, which is quite understandable.
