You have opened a window onto a whole new area of study, Wladek - thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge on the topic. Perhaps the long-time BritishMessage 1 of 240 , Dec 2 7:09 AMView SourceYou have opened a window onto a whole new area of study, Wladek - thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge on the topic.Perhaps the long-time British antipathy towards Poland helps explain why the UK failed to declare war on the USSR after Stalin invaded Poland on Sept. 17, 1939. It was only two weeks after Britain had declared war on Germany for precisely the same reason. I have heard rationalizations about Britain not being able to mount any military action against the USSR, but since Britain mounted no military action against Germany at that time either, the inconsistency of meaninglessly declaring war on one but not meaninglessly declaring war on the other has always baffled me. I wondered if it was actually that Britain cared only about its colonies, in danger from Germany but not in danger from the USSR, and that's why it was happy to enlist Poland in its fight against Germany only. Now, you have shone a new light on the situation with your broader perspective.There is much in the historical record to support your views about Britain regarding Eastern Europe as a playground for itself and the USSR. Consider this excerpt from Covering the Map of the World — The Half-Century Legacy of the Yalta Conference by Richard M. Ebeling, February 1995 (which may be read in its entirety at www.fff.org/freedom/0295b.asp):"At the center of this meeting [Moscow, October 1944] was a proposal of Churchill's to carve up southeastern Europe into joint British-Soviet spheres of influence. According to the British ambassador, who was present at the meeting, Churchill "produced what he called a 'Naughty document,' showing a list of Balkan countries and the proportion of interest in them of the Great Powers. He said the Americans would be shocked if they saw how crudely he put it. Marshal Stalin was a realist. He himself was not sentimental."Churchill proposed that Romania be ninety percent under Soviet influence and ten percent under British influence; Bulgaria would be seventy-five percent under Soviet influence and twenty-five percent under British influence; Greece would be ten percent under Soviet influence and ninety percent under British influence; and in Yugoslavia and Hungary, the Soviets and Britain would split their influence, fifty-fifty. Stalin changed Bulgaria to ninety percent Soviet influence and signed his approval. When Churchill suggested burning the document, Stalin told him to keep it.Churchill, who had expressed anger and voiced condemnation over Stalin's division of Eastern Europe with Hitler in 1939, now proposed to do the same. And Churchill abided by the agreement. When, at the beginning of 1945, Stalin began forcibly deporting Germans out of Soviet-occupied Romania, Churchill said: "Why are we making a fuss about the Russian deportations in Romania of [Germans]?. . . It is understood that the Russians were to work their will in this sphere." And when members of the British Foreign Office then complained that Romanians were being sent to the Soviet Union for forced labor, Churchill said: "We must bear in mind what we promised about leaving Romania's fate to a large extent in Russia's hands. I cannot myself consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Romanians of any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-mines." In Churchill's mind, he had gotten what he wanted: a dominant British influence in Greece and Stalin's acceptance of British naval dominance in the Mediterranean.Churchill took the same attitude towards the fate of Poland. In September 1939, Churchill had strongly advocated Britain's going to war against Nazi Germany on behalf of Poland's independence and territorial integrity. But now in the face of Soviet designs on Poland, Churchill's tune changed. From the first meetings with British diplomatic representatives after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin had insisted that the British government accept as legitimate the Soviet conquests under the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939. The Soviet leader demanded the acceptance of Soviet control of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, eastern Poland, the Romanian province of Bessarabia, and the border territories annexed as a result of the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-1940.At first, Churchill tried to resist, saying that these matters should be settled at a peace conference at the end of the war. But in the end, he conceded everything Stalin wanted. Indeed, it then became Churchill's job to serve as Stalin's diplomatic agent to get the Polish government-in-exile in London to accept the Soviet demands."
Wladek, your information going back to the First World War shows that Churchill may have been following a long tradition and that the betrayal of Poland is part of a wide pattern.So much to learn, so little time...
John HaluchaSault Ste Marie, Canada
From: walter_orlowski <walter_orlowski@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 11:27:39 PM
Subject: [Kresy-Siberia] Re: WWII closed-door pronouncements about PolandRelevant to the released archives, let me interject a new twist. In my view, what happened in Teheran, Yalta and Postdam, was the result of British policies towards Poland, which date back to WWI. Their proposals were not a reaction to accomplished facts by the Soviets, or the need for their army to fight Hitler, and definitely not the persuasiveness of Stalin. Stalin was a vulgar crude liar, and they knew it. Neither England nor France wanted a free Poland during WWI and each proposed a number of silly scenarios as a solution for post-war Europe. After Wilson released his 14 points, France joined in, but England never really supported the idea and kept proposing the many ridiculous solutions which for the most part were off the wall, including the Curzon line (most likely Curzon did not know what Polish lands were in pre-war Russia). That line was meant to please the Russians and no one else. Lloyd George was thinking ahead to the balance of power in post-WWI Europe. The Brits treated Eastern Europe like they did Africa, a land to be divided among the Great Powers which is why the records of the three Summit Meetings of the Big Three read like a meeting among crime lords dividing the territory. The British government never recognized any of the post-WWI Polish boundaries. As I mentioned in previous discussions, Britain always wanted Poland to be a small country under Russian protection, meaning a semi-colony. Britain the largest Empire ever at the time, saw nothing wrong with the Imperial powers ruling the small peoples, and did not want to see the many peoples of Eastern Europe gain their independence. Thus what we call the betrayal of Poland was built into the British policy which dated back to WWI. What is still awaiting an answer, is why did the British see Stalin as a partner in governing Europe and treated him as another Russian monarch, in spite of what they knew about him? Mark, I hope that you will try to answer that question.
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