- Barbara, Quote “if Stalin had a policy of genocide against the Polish nation, Poles born outside the country would be the only Poles left. He had the meansMessage 1 of 240 , Nov 30, 2011View Source
Quote “if Stalin had a policy of genocide against the Polish nation, Poles born outside the country would be the only Poles left. He had the means and time to exterminate the nation... he didn't”
Stalin needed the remaining Polish People, he had already decimated the country with the Great Hunger and then the Deportations began after this the NKVD did their job, then the war came needing soldiers. There was no one left to work the land and keep the nations machinery going. He had to spare the rest otherwise he would not have a workforce. If he continued Genocide, he would be destroying himself. He was cunning but not stupid and when confronted with Hitlers army, he need help from the West as he did not have enough manpower at home, so he had to stop the killings, to look like a nice guy in front of Churchill and Roosevelt, knowing that what happened back home on his territory was hushed up. The war again killed more on top of what Stalin already had destroyed.
I have, as you suggested, gone back to the post of 2009 to which you referred, and others which preceded and followed, easy to find as I’d already red-flagged them. They seem to have started with Andy of Buffalo’s post titled Collection of FDR papers soon to become public, dated 19/11/2009 and turned into the title Poland betrayed by Churchill and FDR. My only input then was to ask you guys not to stop discussing as I was learning so much.
As a political scientist, your academic and hypothetical opinion has obviously been honed over many years, as you say, based on assumptions you believe to be true. My assumptions are different so I have a feeling we will have to agree to differ on some things.
For instance, when you say
if Stalin had a policy of genocide against the Polish nation, Poles born outside the country would be the only Poles left. He had the means and time to exterminate the nation... he didn't
does not suggest to me that he was not a genocidaire. We all know he had no feeling for human life. The fact that he did not exterminate Poles within Poland could possibly have been because he didn’t have the courage to do so publically at that time. Bullies and thugs are not courageous people. Recently I read that those left after the war were plied with liquor, which reminded me of the treatment used on the Aboriginals and Red Indians in other parts of the world. There is more than one way to keep a nation subdued. Fr Krolikowski, early in his book Stolen Childhood, said Stalin looked on Poles as scum, or svoloch. The dissertation below by Jean Bingle showed how useful the Poles were to him in pushing his five-year plans forward. I think Stefan has put it on the KSVM:
LABOUR FOR BREAD: THE EXPLOITATION OF POLISH LABOUR IN THE SOVIET
UNION DURING WORLD WAR II
Jean C. Bingle
Your suggestions as to who and what was worse, instant death in a concentration camp or prolonged suffering in a labour camp, is a topic I have thought about a lot, and again I don’t think it is ever going to be resolved by us mere mortals. Would it have been more humane if my mum’s three-year-old sister had died quickly rather than through prolonged malnutrition and final death on the way to Uzbekistan? I have had to let it go as something not for me to judge. As humans, we don’t know what we are capable of until we are faced with challenges, and here I think not only of the 1.7-million Poles in Siberia with my parents, but also of those in Europe who Viktor Frankl wrote about in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning.
My tendency is to view Stalin as the more sadistic of the two. So when you say
The fact that there are so many descendents of the 1940 deportations must say something – our families were not liquidated on arrival. Arkhangielsk was not Treblinka.
I have to point out that the reason Poles were not liquidated at the labour camps was because they were sent there for just that – labour. So many descendents? When I used numbers posted on this site, including those from the late Jagna Wright, and from Gen Anders, I was struck by the fact that, depending on whether I used the dates 1939 to 1942, or 1939 to 1952, either 7 percent or 4 percent of those removed to Siberia, got out. Far from thinking I am one of so many, I am thankful I descend from such a tiny number of lucky, if heavily traumatised, people.
As for lucky, I don’t think any leader cannot help but be positive. The Polish-Soviet War was messy but it culminated in what was in 1920 deemed The Eighteenth Decisive Battle of the World, the Miracle on the Wisla. Another interesting read.
Thanks to you and all the others who have contributed to discussions such as these over the years, and to my education.
And so I’ll leave this and start hunting out those FDR papers.
- 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