Dear Mark, It is a testimonial to your intellectual honesty, that you would share a document so counter to your thesis that The pact of 1939 was not aMessage 1 of 240 , Dec 1 6:03 PMView SourceDear Mark,It is a testimonial to your intellectual honesty, that you would share a document so counter to your thesis that "The pact of 1939 was not a foregone conclusion. Britain and France had their chance to get the Soviet Union on board and they blew it... they pushed Stalin into the Hitler camp [although the jury is still out on this idea] ... It is by no means a historical given that Stalin had any intention of invading Poland at all... the Nazi's made him an offer he couldn't refuse... to paraphrase Don Corleone!".Inhttp://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no4/revrob.htmlreviewer Robin Blick postulates, "Could it not be that Stalin’s dalliance with Britain and France was a cover (and a spur to Hitler) for the consummation of his Pact with the Nazis? Trotsky certainly thought so, and nothing in this book persuades me that he was wrong." Blick presents compelling evidence from Trotsky and other sources.Unfortunately, the review repeats a fundamental error in, "... to the Nazi war machine right up to the invasion of the USSR on 22 June 1941." This impugns the credibility of the document and raises suspicion about there being other errors (which I don't recognize but I hope you will point out).Certainly, this article otherwise appears much more persuasive thanhttp://jvstalin.com/march_1939which reads more like propaganda trying to justify Stalin's deal with Hitler on the basis that England and France failed to sign a pact with the USSR.
Another source to consider is the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs memorandum of October 1945 that deals with "captured German documents throwing light on German-Soviet relations April 1939-November 1940." These appear to be the same documents that Blick mentions from the American archives, adding, "The first document in the collection is dated 17 April, but in fact the final turn had already been made."
Some pertinent excerpts:"It appears that, as early as the 17th April, 1939, "feelers" were thrown out on the Russian side to explore the possibilities of an improvement in Soviet-German political relations.... On the 26th May Ribbentrop drafted instructions for Schulenburg for an interview with Molotov. These instructions ... made it clear that Germany was willing to make a bargain with Russia if the Soviet Government so desired."...On the 27th July ... it seems clear that, at the time when the Soviet Government were inviting an Anglo-French military mission to Moscow, they were also letting the Germans know that they would allow the question of Danzig and the Corridor to be settled as Germany desired....On the 3rd August ...-before the military conversations had begun—the Russians had decided to make it clear that they would welcome a visit of Ribbentrop to Moscow and they were open to a " deal " with Germany over Poland.On the 14th August Ribbentrop replied that he would come in person. Schulenburg gave this reply to Molotov on the 15th August. Molotov said that he would report the reply at once'to the Soviet Government. He asked whether Germany would consider a Soviet-German non-aggression pact and also use her influence towards the improvement of Soviet-Japanese relations. The first definite mention—in so many words-of a non-aggression pact thus came from the Soviet side....On the 17th August Schulenburg found that, while Molotov was entirely willing to go on with the negotiations, he did not want Ribbentrop to come until details had been worked out for a non-aggression pact and a secret protocol which would deal with Poland, &c.Picking out quotes from a larger document lacks context and can lead to incorrect conclusions, but the tone of these in total seems to support the contention that Stalin not only wanted a deal with Hitler more than one with England and France, but that he proposed it. Though he may have been willing to explore the latter in case they who made him an offer he couldn't refuse - one that would not include a horse's head in his bed.
John HaluchaSault Ste Marie, Canada
I was mostly with you until you made the rather ludicrous assertion that Obama might not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor amid other negativeMessage 240 of 240 , Jan 30, 2012View SourceI was mostly with you until you made the rather ludicrous assertion that Obama might not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor amid other negative comments about FDR.
Your own statement show that the allies were in now shape to take on a powerful Soviet force. The operation tag of "unthinkable" pretty much sums it up. Your reference to Japan supports it. The estimated losses if the anticipated invasion of the home island was in excess of a half million.
Poland, Latvia and Estonia along with East Germany may well have been betrayed in the short term but it may well have prevented the extermination of the Polish people. It certainly would have involved nuclear weapons. Poland lives today in a better world by letting things cool. We did after all, win the cold war.
Poland was betrayed in a more fundamental way for worse consequences in the 1700's by its own magnate class who allowed foreign troops to walk thru its borders.
I think I detect some rather partisan tainting of history here.
Valders Wi. USA
--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ford <cub06h@...> wrote:
> I think you give Roosevelt too much credit for cunning. Churchill,
> perhaps, but not Roosevelt! He genuinely believed that he could parley
> with Stalin, just as Obama believed (and may still believe) that he can
> parley with Ayatollah Kamani over Iran's nuclear program. Roosevelt
> thought the Russians were just another political pressure group--like
> the Polish-Americans in Chicago, for example, whose votes he needed in
> 1944, hence the need to keep the Tehran agreements secret at least until
> the election was over.
> Churchill by contrast had a very clear idea of what Stalin intended, and
> as I have previously shown, he seriously considered what it would take
> in the way of British, American, Polish, and German (yes! German!)
> troops to roll back the Red Army to the 1939 borders of the Soviet
> Union. Truman vetoed that notion, and Churchill's own military chiefs
> were likewise opposed. (The plan was called Operation Unthinkable.)
> The choice was between throwing Poland under the bus and going to war
> against the Red Army, which was just as powerful in June 1945 as it had
> been in April, whereas the US Army was already deploying to the Pacific,
> and the British Army was pretty much spent. Poland got thrown under the
> bus. Would Cameron and Obama do any differently today?
> (I'm not entirely convinced that Obama, were he president during the
> Second World War, would have gone to war against Japan or Germany in
> 1941, let alone against the USSR in 1945.)
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
> On 1/30/2012 1:22 PM, John Halucha wrote:
> > Thanks for your work to bring this crime to the attention of more
> > people, Dan.
> > KS members who want to look at the US Congress report itself can find
> > it in our files at
> > http://www.kresy-siberia.com/1952_Katyn_report_to_Congress.pdf
> > The most interesting aspect, to me, is the West's collusion to cover
> > up Stalin's crime - something that the report to Congress steers clear
> > of. In other words, besides being interested in the coverup of the
> > crime, I'm interested in the coverup of the coverup. As you point out,
> > "the State Department refused to follow Congress's recommendation that
> > the Katyn massacres be brought up at the United Nations."
> > You say in your author's note: "It's long been an article of faith
> > among Poles in the West that the United States and Britain hushed up
> > the atrocity in the Katyn Forest and related massacre sites. This made
> > sense during the Second World War, when Churchill and Roosevelt were
> > desperate to keep the Soviet Union in the war again Germany. But why
> > would the coverup have continued after 1948, when the Cold War was in
> > full swing? It didn't, as these previously unpublished documents reveal."
> > First, it is not obvious that the coverup "made sense" during the
> > Second World War. I often wonder if apologists for Roosevelt and
> > Churchill on this count would just as comfortably countenance them
> > covering up Hitler's crimes if the allegiances been different at the
> > time, and the destruction of Stalin had been to their geopolitical
> > advantage instead. The way Roosevelt and Churchill compromised their
> > core principles on this count laid the groundwork for ongoing
> > corruption in their dealings with Stalin later.
> > While the US did an investigation and publicly released its finding of
> > Soviet guilt in 1952, it pointedly skirted the issue of when
> > Roosevelt's administration knew the truth and how hard it worked to
> > keep it hidden. The British continued a slightly different tack into
> > at least the 1970s ( see
> > http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/our-history/historical-publications/research-projects/katyn/
> > and the pages that link from it), essentially that the British
> > government "has no definite view as regards the attribution of guilt
> > for the Katyn massacre". So, it laid the groundwork to argue in the
> > future, should the crime's perpetrator ever been definitively proven
> > (as it subsequently was) that it did not know at the time.
> > Of course, we know now that both Churchill and Roosevelt were totally
> > aware of Soviet responsibility early on. They knew it when they
> > partied with Stalin at Teheran and Yalta. They knew of Stalin's
> > criminality when they countenanced him keeping the half of Poland he
> > had stolen as Hitler's partner, and they knew it when they pretended
> > to believe his promises of an independent government and free
> > elections in Poland after the war.
> > That may help answer the question, "But why would the coverup have
> > continued after 1948, when the Cold War was in full swing?" The
> > coverup of the US and British early knowledge of the crime's
> > perpetrator was not to keep polishing the image of "Uncle Joe" even
> > after he was their acknowledged enemy, but to protect the image of
> > their own heroes Roosevelt and Churchill. There was great reluctance
> > to publicize their collusion in hiding the truth while they
> > "negotiated" with Stalin. It remains easier for some people to
> > maintain Churchill's later claim amounting to that they were naively
> > bamboozled by Stalin whom they had no reason to distrust, than that
> > they knew full well that they were dealing with a mass-murderer and
> > liar but chose to go along with him for their own motives.
> > At every level of every society there have always been criminals and
> > there probably always will be. An important question is how the "good
> > guys" deal with those criminals and protect us from them and budding
> > criminals who are inevitably going to crop up. Because the Katyn
> > coverup example is an indicator of how corrupted Roosevelt and
> > Churchill were, its importance is broader than "merely" determining
> > responsibility for the cold-blooded officially sanctioned murders of
> > more than 22,000 Polish prisoners.
> > Why worry about the crime and coverup more than a half-century later?
> > Perhaps we should reflect on Santayana: "Those who do not remember the
> > past are condemned to relive it." In this instance, Stalin OK'd the
> > murders confident no one would ever know what he did, or he didn't
> > care. Roosevelt and Churchill OK'd the coverup because they hoped no
> > one would ever know what they did, or at least that by the time it was
> > known no one would care.
> > There may be others in our current governments who are tempted to
> > cover up crimes from the same perspective, much as Hitler was
> > comfortable about perpetrating the Jewish Holocaust after witnessing
> > the world's indifferent stance on the Armenian genocide by the Turks.
> > We can't let that happen: the world needs to reflect not only on
> > Stalin did, but on what Roosevelt and Churchill did to help cover it
> > up. We need to condemn being an accessory after the fact, not excuse it.
> > More evil Stalins have come up, and more will. While we may feel
> > powerless to prevent emergence of psychopaths, we should feel hope
> > that we can influence people of good will to do the right thing when
> > the criminals emerge. That's why we need to study the despicable
> > behaviour of Roosevelt and Churchill, and educate more people about
> > it. Potential imitators need to fear that eventually the truth will
> > out and their complicity will be exposed.
> > John Halucha
> > Sault Ste Marie Canada
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Dan Ford <cub06h@...>
> > *To:* Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 8:25:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Kresy-Siberia] Re: Death Rates/Survival Rates [From
> > the Archives]
> > Well, the full report--Findings of the Select Committee--is certainly
> > available. I have published it as an ebook:
> > http://www.amazon.com/Katyn-Findings-1952-intellectuals-ebook/dp/B005BZKWPW/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
> > Of course there was testimony that didn't make it into the final report,
> > and no doubt that's what Mr Paul is referring to. He seems anxious to
> > prove a cover-up, but his thesis is disproved by the fact that the
> > report was indeed published.
> > It is true that the Eisenhower administration was in 1953 trying to calm
> > the waters with Soviet Russia, those being somewhat roiled by the Berlin
> > Blockade and especially the Korean War, which he had pledged to bring to
> > an end. Accordingly, the State Department refused to follow Congress's
> > recommendation that the Katyn massacres be brought up at the United
> > Nations. That was the whole of the "cover-up."
> > Beware of writers! They feel a need to come up with the larger number or
> > the unknown conspiracy, both of which help to get books published and,
> > once published, bought.
> > There was no cover-up. People just weren't all that interested, with the
> > big War behind them and the Korean War dragging on and on. They were
> > much more interested in hunting out Communists in the US government than
> > in raking up a massacre thirteen years old.
> > (I hasten to add that Mr Paul's book is excellent, apart from that bit
> > of silliness, which I think appears only in the third edition. Perhaps
> > he needed something new to persuade the publisher to bring it out again.)
> > Blue skies! -- Dan Ford USA