"WW2 was Poland's fault" Topic

At least, that's what the Russian Ambassador to Poland has said:

'Russian Ambassador Sergey Andreev on Friday described the Soviet's 1939 invasion of Poland as an act of self-defense, not aggression'

'"Polish policy led to the disaster in September 1939, because during the 1930s Poland repeatedly blocked the formation of a coalition against Hitler's Germany," Andreev said. "Poland was therefore partly responsible for the disaster which then took place." '

link

So now you know the real background to all those games involving the Poles…

I suppose it was also their fault for being massacred at Katyn?

Always kinda thought Hitler had something to do with it, though it's true that there were tentative attempts at forming coalitions against Germany that never went anywhere.

I have no idea if Poland had any hand in scuppering those though, I thought they faltered due to distrust between the UK and USSR.

Of course, one might argue that if Stalin had not interfered, street level resistance from left-wing groups allied with social democrats might have prevented the Nazi's from taking control to begin with so…

News Flash!… Soviets accuse defeated victims of instigating their invasions!… Film at Eleven…

Typical Russian approach to history. Almost neo-Communist.

Rrobby – No soviets today mate.

Welp, that was a chauvinistic Russian nationalist interpretation of history, and perhaps an intended slap at the New NATO.

But. Could the Russian ambassador also have been obliquely suggesting that it is high time for the civilized nations of the world to form a coalition against a new threat? Kaff-kaff, Daesh, kaff-kaff.

And does that mean it was Russia's fault for Germany attacking them? Sounds reasonable if you believe what this individual is saying.

As with every new 'revelation' there is a kernel of truth that can be spun depending on which side of the fences you belong.

link

Newspaper report for speed but a decent Google will show the problems with Russia and Poland.

It may be fairer to say an Alliance that allowed Soviet troops access to Poland was never a possibility.
In hindsight (given Hitler's mindset) Poland had no real chance of survival without compromise and she choses not to compromise. The rest is history.

Not so sure about that Weasel. Today's Russia is looking mighty familiar. In any event, any coalition w/Stalin in the 30's would've led to a Soviet anschluss of Poland. The Poles saw that clearly. They believed the western allies would support them and saw no reason to invite either invader in. Let's recognize this for what it is, modern Russian pro-Soviet revisionist history. It helps them sleep at night I suppose. No worries though. They can't afford open conflict, and the Armata is a paper tiger. They'll keep playing a destabilizing game of keep-away and maskirovka.

Poland was doomed regardless of what she did. The Soviets and Germans were determined to carve her up – again – and nothing was going to stop that.

Typical Russian attempt to revise history in their favour.

Is Polish food any good? I know they make decent vodka.

They also make excellent mead.

Russia is so cute.

But this seriously reminds me of a rapist blaming his victim.

Hi

Maybe the Russian Ambassador should read the full text of the Nazi/Soviet pact.

If he did he would find out the Russian provided all the oil and raw materials to take out France and in 1941 they did it again but Russia was the target.

Yes, Russia hated Hitler so much that they allied with him (until Hitler invaded them).

Zargon try some kielbasa or duck blood soup.

Bigosz, a Polish hunter's soup with lots of sausage, cabbage, apples and other good things, is one of the best stews around.

Right…… And Stalin was a sweet, kind gentle bear of a man.
Not the egocentric, paranoid, homicidal maniac he really was.

Yes, but at least he kept his shirt on.

Polish food is fantastic, but it's food intended to make you round :-)

Enjoy in moderation, according to your doctor's advice :)

Right, because Stalin would have welcomed a treaty group of Central European powers on his western border -- just as Putin does.

Bigosz

= heavenly. The first time I ordered it, I asked the Polish waitress what it was. She stared at me in mute incomprehension: "Bigosz is bigosz!"

Those damn Poles, invading Germany and Belgium all the time…

Huh. And here I've been blaming that Schickelgruber fellow.

I'm assuming by 'blocking coalition' they mean 'not replacing their government with a 'socialist' one vetted by Stalin'?

Though less cynically one can fully understand the reticence of the Poles to having a 1 million Soviet troops in-country given what happened just over a decade previously and IIRC a number of senior Polish politicians of that time had been serving in the Polish army during the Soviet invasion. Also Poland's history isn't exactly a happy one where Russia is concerned.

Would it have altered the course of WWII? Might have slowed Hitler down a touch, but assuming he was set on living space in the east the end result would probably have been a significant chunk of the Red Army getting carved up in Poland rather than Russian. The Soviet's may have even given causa belli if Stalin tried anything in Poland itself.

There is a kernel of truth to it. The Poles (or their dictator) did refuse to compromise. They would not sign an agreement that would allow Soviet troops to cross Poland to get at Germany. Nor would they even negotiate with Hitler over the return of Gdansk and their corridor to the Baltic Sea (thus uniting East Prussia with the rest of Germany again). The result was the agreement between Hitler and Stalin to carve up Poland with spheres of influence elsewhere also defined.

I agree Don, but given the same circumstances would you let Soviet troops move freely through your country?
Germany had already taken Austrian and Czechoslovakia, Hitler could not be trusted. Any negotiations with Hitler would bring more problems and bullying. Once you give in to a bully.

Don,
I don't think you meant to imply that because Poland wouldn't "compromise" giving up territory to Germany or allowing the Soviets to move armies through their territory that Poland deserved to be invaded by the two….?

As Don says, as with many things, there is a kernel of truth to it rather than just a flat statement 'Russia says WW2 is Polands fault'.

It is of course much easier to think the world is black and white, but the centuries long antagonism between Poland and Russia somewhat muddies things.

Stalin did indeed view expansion of the USSRs borders westwards as a 'defensive measure', to increase the depth of the soviet defences. The opportunity to settle various historical scores was also of course a motivation.

Did that mean Poland deserved to be invaded? No, of course not.

To my mind diplomats should be more diplomatic, however he indeed was responding to plenty of this year Polish anti-Russian actions and rhetorics – removal of monuments, desecrating of cemeteries, "discovery" that Auschvitz was liberated by "Ukrainian" troops, and talks that Russians has no right to hold a victory date parade on May, 09.
The truth is, that Soviet Union was proposing anti-Hitler coalition even earlier, and was ready to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 but Poles never agreed on letiing the troops pass, and France and UK were not really interested in seeing communist forces protecting Czechs.
Poland morale ground would be better if they have not joined in partition of Czechoslovakia.
Saying all this, I don't think our ambassador made right statement in proper time.

It's not a case of what Poland deserved. And I certainly don't blame them for not wanting Soviet troops in their territory -- but they got them anyway, didn't they? Hitler was determined to undo the Versailles Treaty. The Polish corridor (an artificial construct of that treaty) was next on his list. Refusing to even talk to him about it was like hanging out a sign that says "Invade Me." Then Britain and (reluctantly) France go and "guarantee" Poland's territorial integrity when they had absolutely no power to do so, and Hitler knew it. Not much of a deterrent. It's like the gravestone that says, "But I had the right of way." Being right and staying alive are not the same thing.

The truth is, that Soviet Union was proposing anti-Hitler coalition even earlier…

Yes this is true.

and was ready to help Czechoslovakia in 1938…

Help Czechoslovakia? HA HA Ha Ha ha ha hahahaha ….

Like they "helped" Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Like they "helped" Romania? Like they "helped" Finland? Ready to "help" Czechoslovakia … Oh that's a funny joke!

(Unless you are a Czech.)

No, Stalin never "helped" anyone but Stalin. He was entirely consistent in this, and with a view of anything more than a single offer the pattern is clear.

It was a game of RealPolitik with few good options for Poland. They were in the middle, between two major powers who wanted to have their own way with the Poles. Their only chance was to play one side off against the other, to keep both at bay. Chickens to not invite foxes in to the coup to protect them from hawks. They tried to play the western allies (particularly France) off against the Germans, but there was no real potential for France to come to Poland's aid in a 3 week campaign.

Similarly there were few good options for Finland or Romania. Both sought independent foreign policies in the 1930s, but Stalin's aggressive attacks drove them to take common cause with Germany. They paid a terrible price in the end for having to choose between the two evils. They chose the less immediate threat, but not the lesser evil.

Hitler was determined to undo the Versailles Treaty. The Polish corridor (an artificial construct of that treaty) was next on his list. Refusing to even talk to him about it was like hanging out a sign that says "Invade Me."

Yes Hitler was determined to undo the Versailles Treaty. But that had very little to do with Poland's plight.

Undoing Versailles was a pre-condition for Hitler, but not a causus belli. The causus belli was the existance of Poland and the Polish people.

There was no path by which the Poles could have avoided Hitler's invasion. "Invade Me" sign? No. The sign read "Destroy Poland and Kill it's People", and Hitler was the one who put that sign up.

Hitler was determined to de-populate Poland and the western (European) part of the Soviet Union, so that he could have the living space for his German super race to grow. His intentions in this regard are consistently described in his writings and speeches over a period of more than 20 years. German plans eventually called for reducing Poland's population by 85%.

THIS was the cause of WW2 in Europe. THIS is the factor that distinguishes WW2 from other wars of the modern era. THIS is what marks the Nazis as the greater evil. Death and destruction in Poland was not a means towards some political end, it was an end unto itself. The war was not started for political reasons, but for racial reasons. The Nazis did not kill Poles because there was a war, they went to war in order to kill Poles (and Ukrainians, and Russians, and above all else Jews).

THIS was the cause of WW2 in Europe. There was nothing Poland could do to get out of the path of this firestorm.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Stalin did indeed view expansion of the USSRs borders westwards as a 'defensive measure', to increase the depth of the soviet defences. The opportunity to settle various historical scores was also of course a motivation.

Martin – I generally give very high marks for credibility to your interpretations of 20th Century history. But I do question this assertion.

The "defensive measure" question seems to be a post-war focus of Soviet foreign policy. For example the Soviet policy of building defensive "buffer states" is, to my readings, a post-war development.

I find very little in the way of "defensive" policy in the pre-war period. Rather, the pre-war Soviet Union was distinctly expansionistic in behavior. Large chunks of territory were taken from many neighboring countries and absorbed into the Soviet Union, rather than being set up as puppet states as in the post-war era.

I am thinking of the same set mentioned above – the Baltic states, Finland and Romania all provide clear examples of aggressive Soviet expansion in the immediate pre-war period. I see nothing "defensive" about any of them. Rather, they were just the manifestation of expansionist policies.

Pre-war, Stalin did not seem to have any particularly keen interest in defensive posturing. He wanted to expand, little by little, and to continue gobbling up territory, populations, and resources.

So I don't see the "defensive measure" idea playing in to Soviet politics in the pre-war era. Could be wrong, though. Would be pleased to learn more, if you have some good examples to point out.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Czechslovakia had 2 treaties, one with France, second with SU.Both large countries were to provide military help and guarantee territorial integrity of Czech republic. France refused to follow their part, SU was ready, but Benes was afraid of Red Army involvement without Western help. Also, Poland was not going to grant a right of passage. History doesn't have what if's , but if Czech actually fought their own war and got the help from Soviet Union? Might have been a different Europe…
I doubt that Czechs could be kept occupied by Soviet Union. It would be an anclave without any supply lines…
In pre-war times, SU helped republic Spain, Mongolia, Korea resistance and communist China. None of them were occupied, though most of them became satellites.
A pretext of Finalnd war was a proposal to exchange land close to Leningrad for larger chunk in Karelia. I understand why Finland refused, but Stalin indeed wanted to move the borders to be able to set a proper defence there. Also worth mentioning Terioki "government" prepared by Stalin to take power in Helsinki in case of success. Finalnd was not supposed to join SU – it was supposed to become a satellite state.
Bessarabia was annexed by Romania in 1918. This territory was never Romanian, and there wasn't Romanian majority. In 1918 during civil war, Russia had noi means to protect its borders, so Stalin took the chance later on…
Also worth mentioning that UK/France had nothing against Hungary and Bulgaria carving themsleves parts of Romania before Stalin moved to Bessarabia…and it didm'ti prevented all three of the countries joining Germany (to be fair to Bulgaria, they never fought against SU)
Baltic states is a bit different story, but there was no way they can live on their own – it has to be Germany ( see Klaipeda region) or Soviet Union. Not going to defend annexation, these countries had similar fate to Czechoslovakia…

I am thinking of the same set mentioned above – the Baltic states, Finland and Romania all provide clear examples of aggressive Soviet expansion in the immediate pre-war period.

Those cases are not particularly pre-war – though they are results of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, which is slightly pre-war.

Annexation of Baltic states took place in summer 1940, though they had already given in to some Soviet demands in late 1939. Bessarabia was also annexed in summer 1940 from Romania.

Negotiations between Finland and Soviet Union were carried out in October and November 1939, with Winter War starting at the end of November 1939.