Dear Rich and Dan,

I don't think there was a 3rd Armoured Brigade in 1939 so I guess the B in 3
B.P. is "batalion".
Oh, and your photo attachment didn't seem to come out. Would love to see it.

By the way, the Polish Army under British Command followed the British rule of
3s... same as the Dan's US but 3 Battalions to a Brigade+HQ, 3 Brigades to a
Division+HQ and 3 Divisions to a Corps.

Best regards, Mark

Dan
This is illuminating!
Thank you

Basia Zielinska (Sydney)







On 18/11/12 4:58 AM, "Dan Ford" <cub06h@...> wrote:

>Think of it this way:
>
>The smallest infantry group is a squad of ten or twelve men. Four squads
>make up a platoon, and four platoons plus headquarters make up a
>company, so a company is about 150 men.
>
>Four companies in a battalion, along with headquarters staff and maybe a
>signals and a weapons platoon. So a battalion might be 600-1,000 men.
>
>Four battalions plus headquarters, artillery, and other support units
>in a brigade or regiment (they are about the same thing). So a brigade
>might be 4000-5000 men.
>
>Four brigades or regiments to a division, plus "div arty" and other
>support units, to a total of 10,000-15,000 men. You might for example
>have three infantry brigades/regiments and one armored brigade in a
>division. Or an armored brigade might be more or less independent,
>operating in support of one or more different infantry divisions at
>different times. Thus the British 7th Armoured Brigade "Desert Rats"
>went from North Africa to reinforce Burma in 1942.
>
>This varies of course from army to army and from war to war. During WW2,
>divisions were organized into corps, and corps were organized into
>armies, and armies were organized into army groups, until one was
>dealing with millions of men. Today, even the division is going out of
>fashion. The US Army is moving toward an organization in which brigades
>are the largest operating unit.
>
>- Dan Ford US
>
>On 11/18/2012 9:26 AM, Richard Kozlowski wrote:
>> I have no idea whether I mean battalion or brigade
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>* PLEASE PAY YOUR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE & MAKE A DONATION:
>http://tinyurl.com/ks-contribute
>____________________________________________________________
>
>* Visit our merchandise & Bookstore: http://tinyurl.com/KS-Store
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>KRESY-SIBERIA GROUP & FOUNDATION
>
>"Research, Remembrance and Recognition of Polish citizens fighting for
>freedom in the Eastern Borderlands and in Exile during World War 2."
>_______________________________________________________________________
>OUR WEBSITES
>
>* Discussion group        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kresy-Siberia/
>* Virtual Museum          http://www.kresy-siberia.org/
>* Facebook Page!          http://www.facebook.com/KSF.FKS
>* Memorial gallery        http://kresy-siberia.com/gallery
>* Kresy property claims   http://www.kresy-claims.org
>* Merchandise & Bookstore http://tinyurl.com/KS-Store
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>* To CONTACT the Group Moderators please send an e-mail to:
>  Kresy-Siberia-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>* To SUBSCRIBE to the discussion group, send an e-mail
>  saying who you are and describing your interest in the group to:
>  Kresy-Siberia-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>* To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
>  Kresy-Siberia-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>

Dear Stan,

With regards to your first point, one cannot accept the premise that if one
believes something to be correct then any actions taken from that idea are
permissable. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union was contrary to
international law, and the note you refer to was but a pretext to that invasion.
And even if it were true in 1939, it most certainly was not true in 1941 when
the USSR  and Poland DID have diplomatic relations. The fact that I am here to
write this today is testment to the fact that Stalin DID recognise the Sikorski
government.Even in 1943 when Moscow broke off dipllomatic relations with the
Polish Government, there was still only one legal Polish government... the one
in London. Stalin had no right to comment on any decisions or actions taken by
that government in regards to its soldiers.

Having said that, do not get me wrong. I have no particular problem with Berling
or the creation of the Berling Army and as I said previously I hope I would have
had the courage to do the same, but let us not pretend that his actions were in
conformity with Polish law. They were not, but history is full of examples of
well meaning actions taken by people whose actions were taken with the best
intentions, but were in fact treason. The Founding Fathers of the USA is the
example that springs to mind. I would not equate Berling with Thomas Jefferson
or Benjamin Franklin, but the analogy stands.

Everything you say about Berling may well be true, but let us not pretend it was
anything other that what it was. If he had fallen into the hands of the London
Poles he would have been shot. He did not and the communists put up a statue to
him.

You quote the Bible, I'll quote Sir John Harrington:

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Best regards, Mark Ostrowski



--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Stanislaw Zwierzynski
<zwierzinski1957@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark
>
> You are very good in terms of international law, explained difference between
Anders and Berling, and I'm sitting in a warm apartment after 70 years, agree
with you.
> Berling (in terms of government Sikorski and Anders) was a traitor.
>
> But September 17, 1939, Ambassador of Poland in Moscow was presented a note of
the USSR (monstrous indeed, but not the point) that a country such as Poland in
terms of the USSR (Stalin) is no more. So from the point of view of Stalin
 Sikorski government was illegitimate, and then it had no right to label - a
traitor or a hero.
>
> And the Soviet Union consistently adhered to this idea.
>
> Stalin in 1943, has already felt like a winner - a radical turn in the war has
already occurred (Kursk Duga). Stalin wanted to create a vassal socialist Poland
- he needed a mechanism of local government, a compliant government. Berling was
very necessary advice.
> But Berling did much to make many Poles from camps, where they were in 1939 -
they could disappear there. Studies show that 5 years at hard labor camp few
people lived, 2-3 years - much more.
>
> It is known that, when formed Anders Army, NKVD redoubled its efforts on
processing of Polish prisoners of war. Certainly much has been recruited or
brainwashed. Berling was one of them. Do not forget that not all was well in
Poland, 1920-39 years., had a very strong social stratification of people. All
this played out that some of officers and soldiers sailed with Anders. But of
course, majority of military joining to army Berling was only one way out of
hell. The fact is that in 1943-44 again faced new wave of terror, and Poles who
were released under an amnesty in August 1941, and not arrived to armies,  were
back in Gulag camps.
>
> So I stand by my opinion - I will not name Berling as traitor. The fact that
he was a conformist - yes. But the fact that Poland was reborn thanks to him,
even as a vassal of socialist Soviet Union, too, no doubt. In the late 40's and
early 50's in Poland reigned extraordinary growth, both in spirit and in
manufacturing. Rose from the ruins of Warsaw and others cities.
> Berling certainly loved his country, and did much for her, at least not less
than Anders.
> But here's what the price - it is only God knows. We do not know whether his
tortured agony.
>
> According to their works ye shall know them. From the point of view of the
biblical wisdom, Anders and Berling and not traitors, but worthy children of
Poles.
>
> Stan.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Mark and Oyun <mark_oyun@...>
> To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:23 PM
> Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Re:  Polish soldiers in Red Army (various
threads)
>
>
>  
> Dear Group,
>
> Poles in the Red Army… how many? I think you will find that there were not
that many Poles (from the Kresy) fighting in the Red Army from the early
conscriptions of 1939/40. As has been said previously, the Poles were not
trusted… quite rightly… how would they expect the Poles to fight with any
enthusiasm for an army that invaded their country? The Poles who were in
military units were very quickly removed to the rear to serve in the so called
"Labour front".  Later many Poles were conscripted to Construction Battalions to
build front-line fortifications. Most of the Poles who were conscripted did not
actually fight; they were a source or semi-slave labour used to support the
war-effort. The "how many" remains an open question.
>
> Poles in the red Army… treason?  A controversial issue. I would argue that a
case could be made that some Poles who volunteered for the Polish 1st Army in
the East were traitors.  My reasoning, being in line with Anna's post 53177,
which is why Berling was considered a traitor. It was a question of choice. Any
Pole who was in the Soviet Union, of course they would join. It was quite
obviously a question of survival and no one could blame them. Poles who were
conscripted �" again, no choice. I am talking about the many Poles who
volunteered… were they traitors? By definition of the Polish constitution they
were. It is not an argument I would put forward with any enthusiasm, but the
fact remains that they volunteered for an army serving another power. The same
argument was used by the Warsaw Poles to remove the citizenship of a number of
senior Polish officers after the war when they joined the Polish Resettlement
Corps. The PRC was an organ of the
>  British Government �" unlike the Polish Army under British Command which
remained under the legitimate Polish Government (albeit in exile). Irony was not
the strong point of the Warsaw Poles… pot, kettle and black.
>
> This "treason", I would argue, could only be counted from the time the Polish
1st Army crossed the Polish Border, and until the Polish government in Warsaw
became the de jure Polish government… and that in itself is another
controversial issue. As I said previously, it is not something I would push
because I would like to think that if I were there at the time I would have had
the courage to join the fight against fascism, but from a legal point of view,
the case could be made… but I'm not sure I would want to make it.
>
> As to General Anders being a traitor… Stan's last post… how? OK, I accept
that from Ander's "point of view" Berling was a traitor… except that it wasn't
a point of view… it was a point of law. Polish law did not/does not allow a
serving soldier to desert his post and join the army of another country. To so
do is treason. Stalin's point of view of Anders is hardly relevant here either.
Anders was a soldier under direct command of the Polish Government, he may be
guilty of many things, but he was a good soldier who did as he was told �"
usually. Even if Stalin had given him a direct order he would have been within
his rights to refuse as he was not under the command of Stalin. Had Sikorski
said "take your men and fight in the East", and had Anders said "NO", that would
have been a different matter. I'm not sure keeping Stalin happy was top of
Ander's "to do" list. I can see no circumstances that would allow us to call
Anders a traitor. With the
>  case of Berling, treason, even if done with the best will in the world, and
with the effect of saving lives, is still treason. It is not a matter of
perspective or opinion; it is a matter of law.
>
> Most countries still have laws that prevent citizens from joining foreign
armies during war time, more so being officers in foreign armies... especially
if that country is hostile to the first.
>
> Best regards, Mark Ostrowski
>

Dear Hania,

I think you will find that he was not conscripted to the Red Army, but the
Polish Army under Soviet Command hence the many Polish references. The Red Army
had no interest in conscripting Poles since they could not be trusted. It was
the Poles who were doing the conscripting from 1944 onwards.  The 1st Polish
Army took Kolobrzeg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Polish_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolberg_(1945)

RWK is local conscripting office. "Raiyonni Voyenni Komisariyat"

The 4999 I'm still working on.

Best regards, Mark

--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Anne Kaczanowski <kazameena@...> wrote:
>
> I had a Polish uncle who had previously  served in 1915-1918 Austrian
army...then Polish army 1919-1920..Infantry.....then after ended up living in
Luck, Wolyn.  In September, 1944, he was conscripted at 45 years old to enlist
in the Red Army....He was wounded in Kolobrzeg and during the time he
recuperated in hospital his family was removed and relocated to newly acquired
territory in Western Poland Sczcecin.  He had no idea where they were even
moved to until he was well enough to find them.  Just out of curiosity I wrote
the Warsaw Archives for information on him....and to my surprise recieved a
photocopy of his original army registration in Luck.  I was surprised to see it
all in Polish handwriting. 
>  
> So my question is: 
>  
>  As a 45 year old civilian living in Soviet occupied territory in 1944 , when
he is conscripted to the Red army...is he conscripted and considered  "Soviet"
civilian?  And would he have served under Berling?
>  
> And his registration also says he was mobilized RWK Luck( this would probably
be after 1920)....Does that mean a reserve?
>  
> I am sure he did not volunteer in the Red Army at 45 years old, as he had a
family to look after.  So I am assuming he had no choice but to enlist. The
registration only has 4999 Infantry at bottom so I don't know other than this
what regiment he would have been in.
>  
> But another note here for people searching...this was my uncle...long dead...I
had no proof of kinship...wrote a letter to Warsaw Archives....just asked for
info on him...and just before Christmas one year recieved the gift of
information. 
>  
> hania
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Mark and Oyun <mark_oyun@...>
> To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:23:27 AM
> Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Re:  Polish soldiers in Red Army (various
threads)
>
>
>  
>
> Dear Group,
>
> Poles in the Red Army… how many? I think you will find that there were not
that many Poles (from the Kresy) fighting in the Red Army from the early
conscriptions of 1939/40. As has been said previously, the Poles were not
trusted… quite rightly… how would they expect the Poles to fight with any
enthusiasm for an army that invaded their country? The Poles who were in
military units were very quickly removed to the rear to serve in the so called
"Labour front".  Later many Poles were conscripted to Construction Battalions to
build front-line fortifications. Most of the Poles who were conscripted did not
actually fight; they were a source or semi-slave labour used to support the
war-effort. The "how many" remains an open question.
>
> Poles in the red Army… treason?  A controversial issue. I would argue that a
case could be made that some Poles who volunteered for the Polish 1st Army in
the East were traitors.  My reasoning, being in line with Anna's post 53177,
which is why Berling was considered a traitor. It was a question of choice. Any
Pole who was in the Soviet Union, of course they would join. It was quite
obviously a question of survival and no one could blame them. Poles who were
conscripted �" again, no choice. I am talking about the many Poles who
volunteered… were they traitors? By definition of the Polish constitution they
were. It is not an argument I would put forward with any enthusiasm, but the
fact remains that they volunteered for an army serving another power. The same
argument was used by the Warsaw Poles to remove the citizenship of a number of
senior Polish officers after the war when they joined the Polish Resettlement
Corps. The PRC was an organ of the
>  British Government �" unlike the Polish Army under British Command which
remained under the legitimate Polish Government (albeit in exile). Irony was not
the strong point of the Warsaw Poles… pot, kettle and black.
>
> This "treason", I would argue, could only be counted from the time the Polish
1st Army crossed the Polish Border, and until the Polish government in Warsaw
became the de jure Polish government… and that in itself is another
controversial issue. As I said previously, it is not something I would push
because I would like to think that if I were there at the time I would have had
the courage to join the fight against fascism, but from a legal point of view,
the case could be made… but I'm not sure I would want to make it.
>
> As to General Anders being a traitor… Stan's last post… how? OK, I accept
that from Ander's "point of view" Berling was a traitor… except that it wasn't
a point of view… it was a point of law. Polish law did not/does not allow a
serving soldier to desert his post and join the army of another country. To so
do is treason. Stalin's point of view of Anders is hardly relevant here either.
Anders was a soldier under direct command of the Polish Government, he may be
guilty of many things, but he was a good soldier who did as he was told �"
usually. Even if Stalin had given him a direct order he would have been within
his rights to refuse as he was not under the command of Stalin. Had Sikorski
said "take your men and fight in the East", and had Anders said "NO", that would
have been a different matter. I'm not sure keeping Stalin happy was top of
Ander's "to do" list. I can see no circumstances that would allow us to call
Anders a traitor. With the
>  case of Berling, treason, even if done with the best will in the world, and
with the effect of saving lives, is still treason. It is not a matter of
perspective or opinion; it is a matter of law.
>
> Most countries still have laws that prevent citizens from joining foreign
armies during war time, more so being officers in foreign armies... especially
if that country is hostile to the first.
>
> Best regards, Mark Ostrowski
>

Dear Rich,

OK, the mist clears... a little. It's not the 3rd Armoured Battalion from 1939.
We've talked about these pictures before:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kresy-Siberia/message/49275
The picture dates from 1943 so could not be a "Polish" Polish unit...
Syria/Palestine more like.

"3BP would normally be 3rd Armoured Brigade of Battalion but I'm fairly sure
it's neither of these". I wrote that in March... but for the life of me I have
no idea why I was so sure!

This needs a little more work!

Regards, Mark

--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kozlowski <r52302@...> wrote:
>
> Mark and Dan, excellent info--thanks so much.  Mark, here are links to the
photo, back and front:
>
> http://www.sinokoz.com/sinokoz.com/Historical/Pages/Dads_Album.html#25
>
> http://www.sinokoz.com/sinokoz.com/Historical/Pages/Dads_Album.html#24
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Mark and Oyun wrote:
>
> > Dear Rich and Dan,
> >
> > I don't think there was a 3rd Armoured Brigade in 1939 so I guess the B in 3
B.P. is "batalion".
> > Oh, and your photo attachment didn't seem to come out. Would love to see it.
> >
> > By the way, the Polish Army under British Command followed the British rule
of 3s... same as the Dan's US but 3 Battalions to a Brigade+HQ, 3 Brigades to a
Division+HQ and 3 Divisions to a Corps.
> >
> > Best regards, Mark
> >
> >
>

Dear Stan,

You are quite right when you said "betrayal to power does not mean betrayal to the people"... I never said it did.  People who are forced by fear of death to perform actions contrary to law can be excused, people who make an informed choice should be held accountable.  When the Polish Governmnet said: the [1st Polish Infantry] division does not belong to the Polish Army and is a Red Army Division under the command of the Soviet authorities they were stating a legal fact.  Zygmunt Berling was not Moses. He knew what he was doing and as a serving senior Polish officer he knew the punishment for desertion was severe. Even with the best intentions in the world, he must have known the consequences. Having said that, my point is purely legal. I do not judge him and leave the philosophy and metaphysics to others.

Best regards, Mark Ostrowski

PS. The question of the legality of the People's Republic of Poland as opposed to the Polish Government in Exile in interesting, but may well be considered "off-topic".

--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Stanislaw Zwierzynski <zwierzinski1957@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Mark!
>
> You raised an incredibly interesting and bottomless topic treason!
> We must understand that betrayal to power does not mean betrayal to the people, to native!
> People higher power!
> Piland Government in exile there until 1989, so that, all that was in Poland until 1989 was illegal?
> Or that's all there was bad?
>
> How many copies broken on it, how much more will the verbal battles, including at Krés
> y.
> I meet in literature on topics Kresy betrayal - and just leaf through. Because it is not certain that I would have passed this rink.
> When the head of osada�  gave NKVD � all lists of people - is cheating or not?
> You know, what would you do with him and his family if he did not? And still NKVD would calculate all.
>
> Sometimes it's frightening to ask such questions.
>
> I can tell, sitting in warm place, and knowing how it turned out there in history, we can judge monstrous phenomenon in society (eg, Stalinism, fascism, cannibalism), frank villains (such as Lenin, Caligula), but we have exercise restraint in the assessment of people who did so much good, and probably a bad one.
>
> Moses displaying Jews out of Egypt in terms of the Egyptian government was a traitor and criminal, but from the point of view of the Bible - the greatest prophet and savior.
>
> Metropolitan Sergius (1943-44, the Patriarch) of Russia, signed in 1928 a petition for recognition of Soviet power (when sitting in jail for 90% of the priests and bishops) - that he had betrayed the Church? There are different opinions on this. I think that he has not betrayed, and then saved the Russian Church. So think of all the people and theologians, that I respected.
>
> Subject is incredibly responsible.
>
>
> Stan from M.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark and Oyun mark_oyun@...
> To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Re: Polish soldiers in Red Army (various threads)
>
>
> � 
> Dear Stan,
>
> With regards to your first point, one cannot accept the premise that if one believes something to be correct then any actions taken from that idea are permissable. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union was contrary to international law, and the note you refer to was but a pretext to that invasion. And even if it were true in 1939, it most certainly was not true in 1941 when the USSR and Poland DID have diplomatic relations. The fact that I am here to write this today is testment to the fact that Stalin DID recognise the Sikorski government.Even in 1943 when Moscow broke off dipllomatic relations with the Polish Government, there was still only one legal Polish government... the one in London. Stalin had no right to comment on any decisions or actions taken by that government in regards to its soldiers.
>
> Having said that, do not get me wrong. I have no particular problem with Berling or the creation of the Berling Army and as I said previously I hope I would have had the courage to do the same, but let us not pretend that his actions were in conformity with Polish law. They were not, but history is full of examples of well meaning actions taken by people whose actions were taken with the best intentions, but were in fact treason. The Founding Fathers of the USA is the example that springs to mind. I would not equate Berling with Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, but the analogy stands.
>
> Everything you say about Berling may well be true, but let us not pretend it was anything other that what it was. If he had fallen into the hands of the London Poles he would have been shot. He did not and the communists put up a statue to him.
>
> You quote the Bible, I'll quote Sir John Harrington:
>
> Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
> Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
>
> Best regards, Mark Ostrowski
>
> >
>

Dear Stan, thank you for your post. It is an engrossing topic and I have enjoyed
reading the exchanges between you and Mark.

I would point out that yes, Anders was a smart man and no doubt could be tricky.
But he would have fought on the Eastern front had Stalin:
- Fed, equipped and trained his army
- Allowed the Polish Army to fight as a single Army

But Stalin kept the Polish Army under provisioned (continually cutting rations).
He wanted to send the ill-prepared Polish Army to the Eastern Front but
scattering the Polish Army amongst the Red Army divisions. I quote Anders,

"but said that the whole army must go into action together and that, first of
all, the men must be properly fed, armed and trained. I pointed out that if
separate divisions were sent to the front, they would be almost lost among the
vast numbers engaged there, and the fact that the Polish troops were fighting
would hardly be realised, even in Poland".

This was in accordance with the Polish-Soviet Agreement which "stated that
Polish troops should not be used at the front in scattered formations, but as
one entity".

Anders sought the approval of General Sikorski and noted that he "was relieved"
when Sikorski agreed. Had Anders been commanded by Sikorski to do as Stalin
wished, he would no doubt have complied.

The Soviets went to great lengths to exploit this as progaganda that the Polish
Army would not fight on the Eastern Front.

Regarding Berling... to Mark's point from a legal point of view he was a
traitor. And to your point, he saved many Polish lives. It is a thorny question!

Best regards,
Anna Pacewicz
Sydney

--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Stanislaw Zwierzynski
<zwierzinski1957@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Anna!
>
> That's my opinion on your question.
>
> From the point of view of Anders - Berling was a traitor.
> But from the point of view of Stalin and environment - just Anders was a
traitor, as able to lead his army to fight in Europe, but not on eastern front.
> After all, for fighting on Eastern Front USSR was created this army. But smart
Anders using various tricks and British pressure, led 117,000 people from the
Soviet Union, remained of Polish military elite, certainly made feat.
>
> But I would not be so uniquely called Beurling traitor. After all, if it were
not for courage and heroism of his army, marked by Stalin and Churchill, it
remains to be revived Poland after the war (I think that yes) - but these are
the boundaries - big question.
> It is no secret that many non-Polish lands (one-third of East Prussia, Gdansk
metropolitan area, etc.) were attached to Poland.
> I know that, for example, city Bialystok with suburbs Stalin's original plan
was to be Belarusian. But then Burling and his men managed to "win" him back.
>
> I know from Russian sources, that those members of army Anders, who after 1946
returned to Kresy, most of them were persecuted and sent to camps for 8-10
years. For this reason, I think, my grandfather did not come back.
>
> On the other hand, I have my own history. The brother of my grandfather
Alphons (b. 1915), fought from 1 to 18 September 1939 with Germans, became a
prisoner of war, was sent to Krivoy Rog to steel mill, and then it was
transferred to Kotlas - SevZelDorLag. So on the way he ran away from NKVD!
Hiding in forests Naliboki Pusha, fought in AK. So when the Soviet Army reached
Iwieniec, Alphons came in it (or in army Berling) and reached Berlin. And thus
saved his life! After war, he was not arrested.
>
> So I would not call Berling traitor. He also saved many Polish lives.
>
> Stan from M.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: annapacewicz <annapacewicz@...>
> To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Polish soldiers in Red Army (do not
debate)
>
>
>  
> Dear group, I am just reading Anders memoirs "Army in Exile". He regarding
Berling as a traitor because he deserted the Polish Army in the USSR. I quote "I
had received a report on the desertion of Leiutenant-Colonel Zygmunt Berling and
several officers who had belonged to the gruop trained in Communist spirit at
the so-called "Villa of Happiness" near Moscow. They took with them a car and
all the documents at our base at Krasnovodsk"... the point here is that Berling
had a choice. He chose the Red Army (with a General's commission) when he could
have chosen the Polish Army.
>
> But the vast majority of soldiers had no choice. After 1942 and the exodus of
the Polish Army in the USSR to Persia, the Polish men who remained in exile in
the USSR or the men in the Borderlands had no choice. Anders goes onto quote a
letter from General Sosnkowski in 1944 prior to the Warsaw Uprising, to the
President, Mr Raczkiewicz
>
> "I can but mention the convocation of the Committee of National Liberation and
the official agreement signed by that Committee at the Kremlin; the arrest of
commanders and staff of the Vilno and Novogrodek areas of the Home Army; the
disarmament of the 27th Infantry Division, and the deportations from the eastern
provinces which have begun and are confirmed by numerous letters received in
Tehran and written by Poles deported to Middle Siberia, and the Semipalatinsk
District..."
>
> There is no doubt that as soon as the Soviets re occupied the Borderlands from
the Germans that forced conscription, repressions and deportations resumed in
earnest.
>
> Anna Pacewicz
> Sydney Australia
>

Lendarda, I understand that this is a sensitive issue. I believe that in trying
to understand what happened to our families who were conscripted into the Red
Army, these are natural avenues that fall-out of that discussion and search for
truth. The question of "traitor" was quoted by General Anders and as Mark
pointed out, applies only to Berling in a LEGAL sense, and not to our own men
who had no choice in the matter. My own uncle fought under Soviet command and I
don't think that anybody is judging him, or any of our soldiers, who had to do
the same. I think that the points of view have been exchanged amicably and
intellectually and without personal slander. But I'm sorry if the exchanges have
distressed you.
I suggest that any further comments regarding Berling maybe started under a new
thread?

With very best regards
Anna Pacewicz
Sydney Australia


--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, "LenardaSzymczak" <szymczak01@...> wrote:
>
> Enough of the debate of Treason or Traitor.  Did anyone notice (DO NOT DEBATE)
we are here to research our families  and not be politicians. It is bad enough
with our families being caught on both sides of the fence, but we do not wish to
discuss their guilt or innocence, only what happened to them and why and find
them.   these people are members of family to KS group, living breathing people,
who were caught up in the horrors and war and tried to survive, through no fault
of their own.  We do not judge them, we only wish to find them and in doing this
we have to look at both sides of the fence.  These debates are detracting from
true research  for our families.  I only put up the post because little was
known about Berlinga Army and its movements and some of us, do have family who
were conscripted into the Red Army.  My Uncle for one, he had no choice.  We all
wish the war was different, but it was not and now we have the painful task of
locating loved ones lost.  Let’s get back to basics and true research for OUR
FAMILY, THE KRESY FAMILIES, and LOVED ONES LOST.
>
>
>
> I am not a moderator, only very angry at the time lost and wasted in debates
of RIGHT AND WRONG. If there was an Earthquake, would we stand there and debate
was it the fault of God, or bad building code, or the Planet shifting.  No, most
certainly not, we would be focused on finding the survivors of the Earthquake
and burying the dead and then remembering them with HONOUR.  Right now, we
should focus on research of our loved ones lost and their journey and miracles
still happen, finding living relatives.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lenarda, Australia
>
>
>
> From: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mark and Oyun
> Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2012 4:16 AM
> To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Re: Polish soldiers in Red Army (various
threads)
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> With regards to your first point, one cannot accept the premise that if one
believes something to be correct then any actions taken from that idea are
permissable. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union was contrary to
international law, and the note you refer to was but a pretext to that invasion.
And even if it were true in 1939, it most certainly was not true in 1941 when
the USSR and Poland DID have diplomatic relations. The fact that I am here to
write this today is testment to the fact that Stalin DID recognise the Sikorski
government.Even in 1943 when Moscow broke off dipllomatic relations with the
Polish Government, there was still only one legal Polish government... the one
in London. Stalin had no right to comment on any decisions or actions taken by
that government in regards to its soldiers.
>
> Having said that, do not get me wrong. I have no particular problem with
Berling or the creation of the Berling Army and as I said previously I hope I
would have had the courage to do the same, but let us not pretend that his
actions were in conformity with Polish law. They were not, but history is full
of examples of well meaning actions taken by people whose actions were taken
with the best intentions, but were in fact treason. The Founding Fathers of the
USA is the example that springs to mind. I would not equate Berling with Thomas
Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, but the analogy stands.
>
> Everything you say about Berling may well be true, but let us not pretend it
was anything other that what it was. If he had fallen into the hands of the
London Poles he would have been shot. He did not and the communists put up a
statue to him.
>
> You quote the Bible, I'll quote Sir John Harrington:
>
> Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
> Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
>
> Best regards, Mark Ostrowski
>
> --- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Kresy-Siberia%40yahoogroups.com>
, Stanislaw Zwierzynski <zwierzinski1957@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mark
> >
> > You are very good in terms of international law, explained difference
between Anders and Berling, and I'm sitting in a warm apartment after 70 years,
agree with you.
> > Berling (in terms of government Sikorski and Anders) was a traitor.
> >
> > But September 17, 1939, Ambassador of Poland in Moscow was presented a note
of the USSR (monstrous indeed, but not the point) that a country such as Poland
in terms of the USSR (Stalin) is no more. So from the point of view of Stalin Â
Sikorski government was illegitimate, and then it had no right to label - a
traitor or a hero.
> >
> > And the Soviet Union consistently adhered to this idea.
> >
> > Stalin in 1943, has already felt like a winner - a radical turn in the war
has already occurred (Kursk Duga). Stalin wanted to create a vassal socialist
Poland - he needed a mechanism of local government, a compliant government.
Berling was very necessary advice.
> > But Berling did much to make many Poles from camps, where they were in 1939
- they could disappear there. Studies show that 5 years at hard labor camp few
people lived, 2-3 years - much more.
> >
> > It is known that, when formed Anders Army, NKVD redoubled its efforts on
processing of Polish prisoners of war. Certainly much has been recruited or
brainwashed. Berling was one of them. Do not forget that not all was well in
Poland, 1920-39 years., had a very strong social stratification of people. All
this played out that some of officers and soldiers sailed with Anders. But of
course, majority of military joining to army Berling was only one way out of
hell. The fact is that in 1943-44 again faced new wave of terror, and Poles who
were released under an amnesty in August 1941, and not arrived to armies, Â
were back in Gulag camps.
> >
> > So I stand by my opinion - I will not name Berling as traitor. The fact that
he was a conformist - yes. But the fact that Poland was reborn thanks to him,
even as a vassal of socialist Soviet Union, too, no doubt. In the late 40's and
early 50's in Poland reigned extraordinary growth, both in spirit and in
manufacturing. Rose from the ruins of Warsaw and others cities.
> > Berling certainly loved his country, and did much for her, at least not less
than Anders.
> > But here's what the price - it is only God knows. We do not know whether his
tortured agony.
> >
> > According to their works ye shall know them. From the point of view of the
biblical wisdom, Anders and Berling and not traitors, but worthy children of
Poles.
> >
> > Stan.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark and Oyun <mark_oyun@>
> > To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Kresy-Siberia%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:23 PM
> > Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Re: Polish soldiers in Red Army (various
threads)
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Dear Group,
> >
> > Poles in the Red Army… how many? I think you will find that there were
not that many Poles (from the Kresy) fighting in the Red Army from the early
conscriptions of 1939/40. As has been said previously, the Poles were not
trusted… quite rightly… how would they expect the Poles to fight
with any enthusiasm for an army that invaded their country? The Poles who were
in military units were very quickly removed to the rear to serve in the so
called "Labour front". Later many Poles were conscripted to Construction
Battalions to build front-line fortifications. Most of the Poles who were
conscripted did not actually fight; they were a source or semi-slave labour used
to support the war-effort. The "how many" remains an open question.
> >
> > Poles in the red Army… treason? A controversial issue. I would argue
that a case could be made that some Poles who volunteered for the Polish 1st
Army in the East were traitors. My reasoning, being in line with Anna's post
53177, which is why Berling was considered a traitor. It was a question of
choice. Any Pole who was in the Soviet Union, of course they would join. It was
quite obviously a question of survival and no one could blame them. Poles who
were conscripted â€" again, no choice. I am talking about the many Poles who
volunteered… were they traitors? By definition of the Polish constitution
they were. It is not an argument I would put forward with any enthusiasm, but
the fact remains that they volunteered for an army serving another power. The
same argument was used by the Warsaw Poles to remove the citizenship of a number
of senior Polish officers after the war when they joined the Polish Resettlement
Corps. The PRC was an organ of the
> > British Government â€" unlike the Polish Army under British Command which
remained under the legitimate Polish Government (albeit in exile). Irony was not
the strong point of the Warsaw Poles… pot, kettle and black.
> >
> > This "treason", I would argue, could only be counted from the time the
Polish 1st Army crossed the Polish Border, and until the Polish government in
Warsaw became the de jure Polish government… and that in itself is another
controversial issue. As I said previously, it is not something I would push
because I would like to think that if I were there at the time I would have had
the courage to join the fight against fascism, but from a legal point of view,
the case could be made… but I'm not sure I would want to make it.
> >
> > As to General Anders being a traitor… Stan's last post… how? OK,
I accept that from Ander's "point of view" Berling was a traitor… except
that it wasn't a point of view… it was a point of law. Polish law did
not/does not allow a serving soldier to desert his post and join the army of
another country. To so do is treason. Stalin's point of view of Anders is hardly
relevant here either. Anders was a soldier under direct command of the Polish
Government, he may be guilty of many things, but he was a good soldier who did
as he was told â€" usually. Even if Stalin had given him a direct order he
would have been within his rights to refuse as he was not under the command of
Stalin. Had Sikorski said "take your men and fight in the East", and had Anders
said "NO", that would have been a different matter. I'm not sure keeping Stalin
happy was top of Ander's "to do" list. I can see no circumstances that would
allow us to call Anders a traitor. With the
> > case of Berling, treason, even if done with the best will in the world, and
with the effect of saving lives, is still treason. It is not a matter of
perspective or opinion; it is a matter of law.
> >
> > Most countries still have laws that prevent citizens from joining foreign
armies during war time, more so being officers in foreign armies... especially
if that country is hostile to the first.
> >
> > Best regards, Mark Ostrowski
> >
>

Dear Lenarda,

No offence intended, but sometimes it is necessary to explore a few of the more
unpalatable events that happened in our history. I would like to thank Anna and
echo her words in that the point was only from a LEGAL point of view. I would
not have the temerity to criticize the soldiers of the 1st and 2nd Polish Army
who suffered and died for the good of Poland and to defeat Naziism. I hope that
the reader will see from my posts that I am neither critical nor judgmental, nor
do I claim to be a moralist. I prefer to deal with facts dispassionately ,
albeit from my own rather peculiar viewpoint.

Best regards, Mark Ostrowski

Dear Rich,

Brilliant! Your post got me thinking. Replace "active service" with "national
service" and you may have something. It would then read "A souvenir of our army
national service"...czynna sluzba.
This may well mean they knew each other in Poland before the war... it would
then give 2 options for 3BP... 3rd Infantry Battalion... but every regiment  had
a 3rd battalions so this would render it meaningless, and Poles usually talked
about which regiment [Pulk] or Division [Dywizja] they were in... or it could be
3 Batalion Pancerny
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Batalion_Pancerny
which was formed in Warsaw. Could the word after 3BP, although rather squiggly,
be Warszawa.  It would make sense, especially since 3BP rings no bells with
Anders and the 2nd Corps.
It could be the 3 Infantry Brigade, but this in unlikely as they did not use the
P in Piechota for brigades. They were referred to as Rifle Brigades.. 3BS: 3
Brygada Strzelcow
The 3BPanc. [3 Armoured Brigade] was formed in 1935... so if he was 18ish
between 1935 to 1938 this may be the time he did his national service.

This is my best guess. Regards, Mark.


--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kozlowski <r52302@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Mark, yes, I remember our exchange of emails.  That was before I learned
that my dad fought in the Polish army in the September campaign.  From the
writing on the back of the photo I get the impression that the two may have
known each other before Anders and before Palestine, hence the reference to 3
B.P.  Do you think that is unlikely?  Rich
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Mark and Oyun wrote:
>
> > Dear Rich,
> >
> > OK, the mist clears... a little. It's not the 3rd Armoured Battalion from
1939. We've talked about these pictures before:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kresy-Siberia/message/49275
> > The picture dates from 1943 so could not be a "Polish" Polish unit...
Syria/Palestine more like.
> >
> > "3BP would normally be 3rd Armoured Brigade of Battalion but I'm fairly sure
it's neither of these". I wrote that in March... but for the life of me I have
no idea why I was so sure!
> >
> > This needs a little more work!
> >
> > Regards, Mark
> >
> > --- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kozlowski <r52302@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark and Dan, excellent info--thanks so much. Mark, here are links to the
photo, back and front:
> > >
> > > http://www.sinokoz.com/sinokoz.com/Historical/Pages/Dads_Album.html#25
> > >
> > > http://www.sinokoz.com/sinokoz.com/Historical/Pages/Dads_Album.html#24
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Mark and Oyun wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Rich and Dan,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think there was a 3rd Armoured Brigade in 1939 so I guess the B
in 3 B.P. is "batalion".
> > > > Oh, and your photo attachment didn't seem to come out. Would love to see
it.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, the Polish Army under British Command followed the British
rule of 3s... same as the Dan's US but 3 Battalions to a Brigade+HQ, 3 Brigades
to a Division+HQ and 3 Divisions to a Corps.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Dear Hania,

OK, so I struck out with the 4999. From 1945 every major unit in the 1st and 2nd
Polish Army was given a four digit number. For example:

1 Warszawska Dywizja Piechoty im. Tadeusza Kosciuszko � JW. 2678
1 Praski Pulk Piechoty � JW. 2415
2 Berlinski Pulk Piechoty � JW. 2425
3 Berlinski Pulk Piechoty � JW. 2671

Most of the larger units are listed here:

http://www.jednostki-wojskowe.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&I\
temid=26

I cannot find anything with 4999. I'm sure the information is out there, but not
on the web, or at least not without searching through many many links. There are
a number of Polish military blogs that might give you help, as might the
National Army Muzeum in Warsaw.I have some feelers out and if I get anything,
I'll get back to you.

I am informed that pre-1945 they used a 5 digit sytem, which correspornded to
the Red Army Field Postal Sytem. The British also use the BFPO [British Forces
Post Office]system of assigning numbers to help postal traffic to military
units.

Best regards, Mark Ostrowski