7 ms·

A digression: in effect of the secret protocol being signed, then-USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany).

A digression: in effect of the secret protocol being signed, then-USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany). Wikipedia articles describing this "event" are typically named "Soviet invasion of Poland" or "Soviet occupation of East Poland", or something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.

ekianjo 7y ago
Worth noting that the Allies who justified the protection of Poland to declare war on Germany, avoided declaring war on Soviet Russia which invaded Poland on the Eastern side (about 2 weeks after).
- vetinari 7y ago
  From another POV: those two week later Poland as a state didn't exist, the former Polish government was in exile, and USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war.
  - jagger11 7y ago
    Polish government went exile after the Soviets invaded. PS: In 1919, it was USSR who fought the war on Polish ground, and lost. I don't think you'll find too much material to play moral high ground here.
    - vetinari 7y ago
      2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground. The border was supposed to be Curzon line (exactly that line, that USSR took back in 1939), but the Poles were gunning for more, hence the 1919-1921 war. If you consider Polish ground whatever was high mark of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, then good luck with that. It was empire building in the making, they overstretched and didn't make it. It is no Polish ground exactly in the same sense, that Balkan is not Turkish either.
      - jagger11 7y ago
        > 2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground Versailes declaration (FR, UK, IT), with support of Polish statehood - June 1918 / End of WW1 - November, 1918 / 2nd Polish Republic established - November, 1918 / Start of Polish-Sovet war - February, 1919
        vetinari 7y ago
        Polish statehood is not the same as the polish territory at a convenient point of time. After Versailles, the Poland was established on the territory of Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire and Russian empire. However, the Russian empire part was supposed to be up to the Curzon line. Instead, the Poles went opportunistic far behind it. What they gained in the war (because Soviets were weak at the time), they lost in the war 20 years later (table has turned, they were weak at the time). Not that they didn't similar things elsewhere; they had to annex parts of Czechoslovakia too (1919-1920). Sorry, I don't have sympathy when a conqueror loses whatever they conquered.
        jagger11 7y ago
        - In 1918, borders of Poland were established on the future Curzon line (more or less, less in fact) - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%931939)#/media/File:Republic_of_Poland_in_mid_November_1918.PNG https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%93... - The territorial gains of Poland in 1919-1920 materialized, because it won a war started by the Soviet Union - Curzon line was proposed/described only in 1920 - Those lands (that you described as conquered and re-conquered) weren't Russian etnically, more like Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian - (edit) The secret pact (Germany-USSR) didn't say Soviet union will recover the territorial gains from 1920-1921, but that it will occupy Eastern Poland (east of Vistula River), making it effectively partition of Poland, so no Curzon line here too. PS: Please reply if you'd like, and EOT for me. This whole centithread started because I wanted to display that the current Russian historiography is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
  - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
    USSR didn't exist in 1920 either, it was established in 1922.
    - vetinari 7y ago
      True, but when you use the optics "it is no man's land, let's take it while we can", why only in the case of 1919-1921, but not in the 1939 case? When Soviets crossed Polish borders in 1939, the Polish statehood was exactly in the same defunct state as the Soviet in 1919-21.
      - jagger11 7y ago
        Polish borders as of 1918 are here - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%931939)#/media/File:Republic_of_Poland_in_mid_November_1918.PNG https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%93... Soviet Union decided to attack, it lost the war, it had to ceede territory.
      - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
        Poles didn't cross the Soviet border in 1919.
  - liberal_098 7y ago
    > USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war Essentially, Poland was occupying these territories between 1921 and 1939. Also, Poland had a dictatorship (quite typical in Europe at that time) and they were highly aggressive with respect to their neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–19), Polish-Lithuanian War (1920, culminating in Żeligowski's Mutiny), Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (beginning in 1918).
    - jagger11 7y ago
      It had authoritarianism (with many democratic elements in place) since 1926 (way way more liberal than that of Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany). Before that it was fully democratic (though, chaotic). As for the conflicts you'd decribed, some of them were conflicts without clear aggressor (e.g. Polish-Czechoslovak conflicts of 1918) typical of those times, some were misdeeds of Polish state (annexation of Vilnus and Czechoslovakian Zaolzie in 1938).
  - vkou 7y ago
    The invasion by the USSR is what caused the collapse of Poland. It couldn't fight a two-front war.
    - Koshkin 7y ago
      As if it hadn't been losing to the Germans already.
      - jagger11 7y ago
        So, helping Nazi Germany in the beggining of the WW2 seems justified in light of this, I agree.
        Koshkin 7y ago
        The Germans did not need help, and they would have been happy to take all of Poland.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    This is an absolutely non valid POV. The Polish government still existed back on the 17th of September when the USSR invaded, and Russia and Poland has signed a treaty of non-aggression that was renewed for 10 years in 1934 and was still claimed to be valid by both parties back in 1938. There's no way you can deny that the USSR invaded a state of Poland that still existed and was still fighting against aggressors right when Russia troops passed the frontier. One source, out of many: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4437527/f1.item.zoom https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4437527/f1.item.zoom Note that your comment is actually pure propaganda from Staline's himself (this is exactly what the USSR claimed when they invaded Poland, and they presented themselves as liberators and protectors instead of invaders). Of course, you should know better than to trust the communist propaganda.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  British and French had treaties with Poland, the US didn't enter the war until 41. Roosevelt and Churchill seemed to believe Stalin's promises about Poland at Yalta. Only later did they seem to realise Stalin's words were empty. Churchill was hugely criticised in parliament right after for the poor treatment of Poland, including by his own party. There was even a vote of confidence in the government. Of course post-war Europe ended up looking very suspiciously like the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines...
  - petre 7y ago
    Roosevelt and Churchill practically gave away the whole of Eastern and Central Europe to Stalin. That's why the whole Yalta affair is quite unpopular amongst Eastern and Central Europeans. Hopefully history won't repeat itself now that we're all part of Nato.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - oblio 7y ago
      Trump is tearing down NATO right now and the US doesn't even need it anymore since it's focusing on China. I'm glad that Romania is on the Western side this time, maybe we get to be spared from foreign imposed governments for once. If we get lucky maybe we can sneak in a reunion with Moldova within the next few decades while Russia goes through its usual cycle: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20140322_WWD000_0.jpg https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
      - petre 7y ago
        If you ignore the bullying, Trump is rather pragmatic. He's not tearing down NATO but pushing other NATO countries to take responsibility, fund their militaries and maybe buy US weapons in the process. Poland and Romania are quite receptive, Germany not so much because they aren't directly threatened. The focus on China and Iran is also pragmatic. China has gotten more aggressive lately and Iran is likely getting punished.
gdy 7y ago
"co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany" It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
- rblatz 7y ago
  Yeah! what about that![0] 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - gdy 7y ago
    Please don't mindlessly repeat this Cold War propaganda bit. There is a direct cause and effect relationship between the Munich agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Talking about the latter starting the WW2 without mentioning the former is at the very least misleading.
    - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
      Please, don't mindlessly repeat this Russian propaganda. Rapallo happened in 1922. And there is a direct cause and effect relationship between it and German militarization.
      - gdy 7y ago
        You will need to elaborate on that. Edit: Please don't substantially edit your comments after they have a reply. And you still need to elaborate.
      - Synaesthesia 7y ago
        The war nearly started in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. Hitler was already determined upon war at that point, so he is right that it’s a split toe more complex than that. You have to look at the preceding years, appeasement and Munich.
- jagger11 7y ago
readhn 7y ago
"USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany)." German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit. The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis. https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement
- petre 7y ago
  They ended up with the USSR coming to their "defense" anyhow, just like they also did later, in 1965.
samstave 7y ago
Is this when there were mass killings of poles in the forests? Or was that by the Nazis?
- philwelch 7y ago
  Katyn was perpetrated by the Soviets.
konart 7y ago
Why lie? >Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.
- jagger11 7y ago
  Please retract the accussation of lie, it's quite unpleasant to me personally: I said that the title says "march", and you seem to confirm.
  - konart 7y ago
    Your comment states this as if russian version has nothing to do with 'invasion", if not a lie, than clearly an attempt to make people think that russian version is somehow different in this regard, which is a lie. As the 'march' part is only applicable to soviet historiography as stated on the wiki page and obviously should not be changed as this is a historical fact.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Listen, after decades of listening to the American Civil War being refought, this discussion is fascinating and entertaining. But can we keep it somewhat civil?

ekianjo 7y ago

Worth noting that the Allies who justified the protection of Poland to declare war on Germany, avoided declaring war on Soviet Russia which invaded Poland on the Eastern side (about 2 weeks after).

vetinari 7y ago
From another POV: those two week later Poland as a state didn't exist, the former Polish government was in exile, and USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war.
- jagger11 7y ago
  Polish government went exile after the Soviets invaded. PS: In 1919, it was USSR who fought the war on Polish ground, and lost. I don't think you'll find too much material to play moral high ground here.
  - vetinari 7y ago
    2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground. The border was supposed to be Curzon line (exactly that line, that USSR took back in 1939), but the Poles were gunning for more, hence the 1919-1921 war. If you consider Polish ground whatever was high mark of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, then good luck with that. It was empire building in the making, they overstretched and didn't make it. It is no Polish ground exactly in the same sense, that Balkan is not Turkish either.
    - jagger11 7y ago
      > 2nd Polish republic was established after WW1, so there was no Polish ground Versailes declaration (FR, UK, IT), with support of Polish statehood - June 1918 / End of WW1 - November, 1918 / 2nd Polish Republic established - November, 1918 / Start of Polish-Sovet war - February, 1919
      - vetinari 7y ago
        Polish statehood is not the same as the polish territory at a convenient point of time. After Versailles, the Poland was established on the territory of Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire and Russian empire. However, the Russian empire part was supposed to be up to the Curzon line. Instead, the Poles went opportunistic far behind it. What they gained in the war (because Soviets were weak at the time), they lost in the war 20 years later (table has turned, they were weak at the time). Not that they didn't similar things elsewhere; they had to annex parts of Czechoslovakia too (1919-1920). Sorry, I don't have sympathy when a conqueror loses whatever they conquered.
        jagger11 7y ago
        - In 1918, borders of Poland were established on the future Curzon line (more or less, less in fact) - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%931939)#/media/File:Republic_of_Poland_in_mid_November_1918.PNG https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%93... - The territorial gains of Poland in 1919-1920 materialized, because it won a war started by the Soviet Union - Curzon line was proposed/described only in 1920 - Those lands (that you described as conquered and re-conquered) weren't Russian etnically, more like Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian - (edit) The secret pact (Germany-USSR) didn't say Soviet union will recover the territorial gains from 1920-1921, but that it will occupy Eastern Poland (east of Vistula River), making it effectively partition of Poland, so no Curzon line here too. PS: Please reply if you'd like, and EOT for me. This whole centithread started because I wanted to display that the current Russian historiography is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
- qbaqbaqba 7y ago
  USSR didn't exist in 1920 either, it was established in 1922.
  - vetinari 7y ago
    True, but when you use the optics "it is no man's land, let's take it while we can", why only in the case of 1919-1921, but not in the 1939 case? When Soviets crossed Polish borders in 1939, the Polish statehood was exactly in the same defunct state as the Soviet in 1919-21.
    - jagger11 7y ago
      Polish borders as of 1918 are here - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%931939)#/media/File:Republic_of_Poland_in_mid_November_1918.PNG https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Polski_(1918%E2%80%93... Soviet Union decided to attack, it lost the war, it had to ceede territory.
    - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
      Poles didn't cross the Soviet border in 1919.
- liberal_098 7y ago
  > USSR took back territories that Poland took from USSR in the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet war Essentially, Poland was occupying these territories between 1921 and 1939. Also, Poland had a dictatorship (quite typical in Europe at that time) and they were highly aggressive with respect to their neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–19), Polish-Lithuanian War (1920, culminating in Żeligowski's Mutiny), Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (beginning in 1918).
  - jagger11 7y ago
    It had authoritarianism (with many democratic elements in place) since 1926 (way way more liberal than that of Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany). Before that it was fully democratic (though, chaotic). As for the conflicts you'd decribed, some of them were conflicts without clear aggressor (e.g. Polish-Czechoslovak conflicts of 1918) typical of those times, some were misdeeds of Polish state (annexation of Vilnus and Czechoslovakian Zaolzie in 1938).
- vkou 7y ago
  The invasion by the USSR is what caused the collapse of Poland. It couldn't fight a two-front war.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    As if it hadn't been losing to the Germans already.
    - jagger11 7y ago
      So, helping Nazi Germany in the beggining of the WW2 seems justified in light of this, I agree.
      - Koshkin 7y ago
        The Germans did not need help, and they would have been happy to take all of Poland.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  This is an absolutely non valid POV. The Polish government still existed back on the 17th of September when the USSR invaded, and Russia and Poland has signed a treaty of non-aggression that was renewed for 10 years in 1934 and was still claimed to be valid by both parties back in 1938. There's no way you can deny that the USSR invaded a state of Poland that still existed and was still fighting against aggressors right when Russia troops passed the frontier. One source, out of many: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4437527/f1.item.zoom https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4437527/f1.item.zoom Note that your comment is actually pure propaganda from Staline's himself (this is exactly what the USSR claimed when they invaded Poland, and they presented themselves as liberators and protectors instead of invaders). Of course, you should know better than to trust the communist propaganda.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
British and French had treaties with Poland, the US didn't enter the war until 41. Roosevelt and Churchill seemed to believe Stalin's promises about Poland at Yalta. Only later did they seem to realise Stalin's words were empty. Churchill was hugely criticised in parliament right after for the poor treatment of Poland, including by his own party. There was even a vote of confidence in the government. Of course post-war Europe ended up looking very suspiciously like the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines...
- petre 7y ago
  Roosevelt and Churchill practically gave away the whole of Eastern and Central Europe to Stalin. That's why the whole Yalta affair is quite unpopular amongst Eastern and Central Europeans. Hopefully history won't repeat itself now that we're all part of Nato.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - oblio 7y ago
    Trump is tearing down NATO right now and the US doesn't even need it anymore since it's focusing on China. I'm glad that Romania is on the Western side this time, maybe we get to be spared from foreign imposed governments for once. If we get lucky maybe we can sneak in a reunion with Moldova within the next few decades while Russia goes through its usual cycle: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20140322_WWD000_0.jpg https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
    - petre 7y ago
      If you ignore the bullying, Trump is rather pragmatic. He's not tearing down NATO but pushing other NATO countries to take responsibility, fund their militaries and maybe buy US weapons in the process. Poland and Romania are quite receptive, Germany not so much because they aren't directly threatened. The focus on China and Iran is also pragmatic. China has gotten more aggressive lately and Iran is likely getting punished.

gdy 7y ago

"co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany" It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.

rblatz 7y ago
Yeah! what about that![0] 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- gdy 7y ago
  Please don't mindlessly repeat this Cold War propaganda bit. There is a direct cause and effect relationship between the Munich agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Talking about the latter starting the WW2 without mentioning the former is at the very least misleading.
  - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
    Please, don't mindlessly repeat this Russian propaganda. Rapallo happened in 1922. And there is a direct cause and effect relationship between it and German militarization.
    - gdy 7y ago
      You will need to elaborate on that. Edit: Please don't substantially edit your comments after they have a reply. And you still need to elaborate.
    - Synaesthesia 7y ago
      The war nearly started in 1938 over Czechoslovakia. Hitler was already determined upon war at that point, so he is right that it’s a split toe more complex than that. You have to look at the preceding years, appeasement and Munich.
jagger11 7y ago

readhn 7y ago

"USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany)." German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit. The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis. https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement

petre 7y ago
They ended up with the USSR coming to their "defense" anyhow, just like they also did later, in 1965.

samstave 7y ago

Is this when there were mass killings of poles in the forests? Or was that by the Nazis?

philwelch 7y ago
Katyn was perpetrated by the Soviets.

konart 7y ago

Why lie? >Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.

jagger11 7y ago
Please retract the accussation of lie, it's quite unpleasant to me personally: I said that the title says "march", and you seem to confirm.
- konart 7y ago
  Your comment states this as if russian version has nothing to do with 'invasion", if not a lie, than clearly an attempt to make people think that russian version is somehow different in this regard, which is a lie. As the 'march' part is only applicable to soviet historiography as stated on the wiki page and obviously should not be changed as this is a historical fact.
mcguire 7y ago
Listen, after decades of listening to the American Civil War being refought, this discussion is fascinating and entertaining. But can we keep it somewhat civil?