The 16th republic ?
Michael Tobis
of Kentucky separate from the main part of the state, entirely surrounded by
Missouri and Tennessee?) has made me aware that there's a piece of the RSFSR
sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland, entirely separate from the rest of
Russia. It's called the Kaliningrad Oblast, and I guess it's historically
Prussian, given what I remember about history, and the fact that my atlas gives
German alternative names for most locations.
I'm just curious. Does anyone know the political situation there? Is it still
predominantly German, or more Slavic? How do they feel about probably being
cut off from the rest of Russia? Any chance of yet another independent state?
Given its location on the Baltic, it is surprising that this region is
(as far as I know) never heard from in the Western press.
mt
Albert Langer
(Michael Tobis) writes:
>I'm just curious. Does anyone know the political situation there? Is it still
>predominantly German, or more Slavic? [...]
My understanding is that the German population was required to move to
within the new German borders (along with many Germans living in what
is now Polish territory) after the second world war, and Russians were
settled in their place as the region was considered of strategic
importance.
>Given its location on the Baltic, it is surprising that this region is
>(as far as I know) never heard from in the Western press.
I believe it was a closed military region with no access for western
journalists.
Incidentally, with all the re-writing of history now going on it is
worth remembering that when the Soviet Union annexed the three
Baltic states, the alternative was for Nazi Germany to take them.
Like Finland, their independence from the Soviet Union was achieved
as a result of the October revolution - they were not independent
under Tsarism. There was no possibility of them remaining
independent when Germany moved against Poland.
Around the same time the Soviet Union also seized a strip of territory
from Finland by war (after unsuccessfully offering a larger territory
in exchange), because that land was likewise considered essential
for the defence of Leningrad from future Nazi attack.
There has also been a lot of talk about how parts of the Ukraine were "free"
from Soviet rule until after the second world war. In fact they were
seized by the German Army during world war I, with the treaty of
Brest-Litovsk, and regained when Germany was defeated in world war II.
Since the people of the Baltic states want independence they should
and will have it. If those of the Ukraine or any other nation want
it they should and will get it also. That right to self-determination
was always spelled out in the old Soviet Constitution though trampled
on even for non-USSR nations like Czechoslovakia and Poland in practice.
But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression. They are no different
in principle from the later Soviet occupations of the axis powers
Hungary and Rumania and the Soviet occupation of eastern Germany.
To call those "aggression" is to defend Nazism.
Much later, the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia and used
military force to compel a coup in Poland and occupied Afghanistan.
Those are aggression.
C.A. Charles Hoequist
> there's a piece of the RSFSR
>sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland, entirely separate from the rest
>of Russia. It's called
>the Kaliningrad Oblast, and I guess it's historically
>Prussian, given what I remember about history, and the fact that my
> atlas gives German alternative names for most locations.
Yup. Used to be East Prussia. The city of Kaliningrad itself was
Koenigsberg, birthplace of Kant.
The American press may not have much to say about it, but I've seen
articles in _der Spiegel_, _die Zeit_ and _the Economist_ about
it in the last eight months. The consensus was that it is now a Russian
area, the German population having been either driven out or exterminated
beginning in 1945. The local authorities there are apparently
undertaking some links with the FRG, trying to get money
to fix up some of the German-era buildings and perhaps attract some
German business and tourism.
-ceh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hoequist |"Nay... I've tried these get-rich-quick
hoeq...@bnr.ca | inventions and I am done." --Joe
BNR Inc. | Cannon, Speaker of the House, refusing
PO Box 13478 | to invest in Bell's invention.
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27709-3478, USA
919-991-8642
Michael Rabinovich
>
>Around the same time the Soviet Union also seized a strip of territory
>from Finland by war (after unsuccessfully offering a larger territory
>in exchange), because that land was likewise considered essential
>for the defence of Leningrad from future Nazi attack.
>
readers correct me), and it was their prime south-most land. What was
offered in exchange was vast arctic area. Now, as to the necessity to
defend Leningrad, remember that Leningrad was built as a fortpost
on the egde of the country. Following your logic, next step should be
to take another "strip of territory" from Finland to defend Vyborg which
is now close to the border, and so forth. So, you propose a very easy
way for countries to gain territory: build a city near the border,
and then claim that some buffer territory is needed to defend it!
>
>But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
>independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
>territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
>the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression.
What these actions achieved actually was that (i) Finland relactantly
took side of Germany to regain its territory and was a northern link
of the Siege of Leningrad. (ii) In Baltics, Nazis were welcomed as
liberators and many young men joined the German army.
So, even strategically, these actions proved harmful for defence.
So, let's stop juggling with words and face the facts: those actions
(as well as similar actions in Moldavia and Western Ukraine) were
taken for the reason of territorial expansion. At that time, Stalin
did not believe in the possibility of war with Germany!
What also proves you are wrong is the fact that after the War was over
and the USSR became super-power with buffer states on its borders,
it did not relinquish control of any of the territories it took.
>To call those "aggression" is to defend Nazism.
I wonder what you'd say if the county you are a sitizen of would be found
useful by some other country (for defence or other reasons)
and occupied and raped against the will of its population for 40 years.
Misha.
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
cmf...@csc2.anu.edu.au (Albert Langer) writes:
>
> But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
> independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
> territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
> the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression. They are no different
> in principle from the later Soviet occupations of the axis powers
> Hungary and Rumania and the Soviet occupation of eastern Germany.
I think YOU are attempting to rewrite the history. In September
1939 both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were close friends.
They both attacked Poland fulfilling Ribbentrop-Molotow pact.
Originally Baltics were supposed to be in German sphere, but
Germany exchanged them in the fall of 1939 for captured
Polish territories east of Wisla river, which were supposed
to fall into Russian hands. Annexation of the Baltics was
just a belated fullfilment of that agreement. Soviets were
masters of propaganda and painted those ruthless and cruel
annexations (of 1/3 of Polish territory and the Baltics)
as efforts to "protect local population from chaos". I didn't
think however anyone remains fooled by those cheap tricks today.
> To call those "aggression" is to defend Nazism.
No. To call those "aggression" is to give it a right name.
In 1939 and in 1940 Soviets were no less aggressors than
Germans. Only when Germany attacked, they suddenly became
victims and Western powers started treating them as Ally
(on the principle that enemy of my enemy is my friend).
That error was cemented in Yalta when Western powers
agreed to give half of the Europe to the Soviets.
Mikolaj Jozefowicz
Tony Porczyk
>But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
>independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
>territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
>the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression.
Would you also include here a September 17, 1939 attack of SU on
Poland? As you know, it was a preplanned move stated in the
Ribbbentrop (sp?) Molotov pact.
>Much later, the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia and used
>military force to compel a coup in Poland and occupied Afghanistan.
>Those are aggression.
Absolutely agree.
Tony
Albert Langer
>>But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
>>independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
>>territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
>>the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression.
>
>Would you also include here a September 17, 1939 attack of SU on
>Poland? As you know, it was a preplanned move stated in the
>Ribbbentrop (sp?) Molotov pact.
Yes I would certainly include the partition of Poland. The only
difference between that and the Baltics and Finland is that
there is less dispute about it. Not many deny that that the
only alternative to the Soviet Union occupying part of Poland
was that Nazi Germany would have taken all of it, and that
by doing so the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews were saved
as well as later contributing to defence against the invevitable
Nazi attack on the Soviet Union.
I do not want to get into an extended debate about this and may
not contribute further, but I will just respond briefly to Michael
Rabinovich and Mikolaj Jozeforicz as well.
First, I agree that by violating the independence of the Baltic
states and the territorial integrity of Finland, the Soviet action
contributed to many people in those countries joining the anti-Soviet
and pro-Nazi camp. Even worse, the war with Finland was used as a basis
for mobilization by forces in Britain and other countries who were
still trying to arrange a combined war against the Soviet Union by
Germany and Britain instead of what ultimately did occur.
All that was an unavoidable consequence of the sheer military
necessity for a viable defence of Leningrad. There was never any
doubt that the Nazis would be able to use bases in the Baltic
states and Finland and the increased support for them doing so
was of minor importance compared with the strategic importance
of the territory concerned. Leningrad very nearly did fall to
the Nazi onslaught and Stalin's judgment on the importance of
these preparations was proved correct. Leningrad would certainly have
fallen if the Nazis had been able to put artillery in that area.
Claims that "Stalin did not believe in the possibility of war
with Germany" and that it was simple territorial expansion are
simply absurd. Belief in such claims merely reflects the outrage
against the Soviet Union that I have already agreed did result
from its violation of those countries independence and territorial
integrity. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was clearly a result of
British and French refusal to ally with the Soviet Union against
Nazi Germany and a brilliant stroke to prevent the Nazi war machine
heading east immediately as the appeasers had hoped. Anti-communists
like Winston Churchill have had no difficulty acknowledging this.
Simple common sense shows the absurdity of believing the Soviet
Union went to war with Finland out of a desire to expand into
10% of Finnish territory. If expansion was the goal, then having
gained the strategically decisive 10% they could have easily
taken the lot. The aim was obviously to ensure the defence of
Leningrad and that in itself proves Stalin believed very much
indeed in the possibility of war with Germany.
As to allowing independence for the Baltic States after the second world
war was over, the situation was complicated in the immediate post-war
years by the fact that most of the pro-independence forces had also
been pro-Nazi. I certainly agree that it is way past time now to
allow a free choice, and that the people of those countries have clearly
chosen independence.
The fact that the Soviet Union was an aggressive imperialist superpower
in recent years, invading Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia and threatening
Poland etc, should not result in re-writing the history of its earlier
years, when it led the world in standing up to fascist aggression.
One might as well believe that because the USA committed aggression in
Vietnam etc, it too was an aggressor in world war II.
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
cmf...@csc2.anu.edu.au (Albert Langer) writes:
(Soviet conquests of early WW2:)
>>>territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
>>>the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression.
>>
>>Would you also include here a September 17, 1939 attack of SU on
>>Poland? As you know, it was a preplanned move stated in the
>>Ribbbentrop (sp?) Molotov pact.
>
> Yes I would certainly include the partition of Poland. The only
> difference between that and the Baltics and Finland is that
> there is less dispute about it. Not many deny that that the
> only alternative to the Soviet Union occupying part of Poland
> was that Nazi Germany would have taken all of it, and that
> by doing so the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews were saved
> as well as later contributing to defence against the invevitable
> Nazi attack on the Soviet Union.
What an absurd statement! It is for me hard to believe indeed
that there can be somebody today believing Soviet propaganda
from 50 yrs ago! Well, sir, in 1939 and 1940 Soviets behaved
in the territories they occupied at least as badly as Germans
in their zone. Millions of Poles were deported in most cruel
conditions to Siberia, of which hundred of thousands perished.
Of course later Nazis topped them with their "final solution".
That was however much later, after Nazis invaded SU. To claim
that Soviets "saved the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews"
by invading sovereign country is insulting to those thousands
who perished in Gulag archipelago and in Kazakhstan.
It is insulting to thousands Polish officers, most of them reserve,
that is doctors, engineers, lawyers etc who were all murdered
by Soviet NKVD in Katyn and other places. Or will you also
repeat this piece of Soviet propaganda that Katyn was done
by Germans?
>
> Claims that "Stalin did not believe in the possibility of war
> with Germany" and that it was simple territorial expansion are
> simply absurd. Belief in such claims merely reflects the outrage
> against the Soviet Union that I have already agreed did result
> from its violation of those countries independence and territorial
> integrity.
Claims that Stalin did not believe the possibility of war with
Gertmany are true and well documented. Immediately after
Soviets and Germans partitioned Poland, a fruitful collaboration
between the two countries started. Starting from close collaboration
between Gestapo and NKVD through exports of Soviet grain and oil
to Germany. Stalin completely overlooked the German preparation
for war, did not believe his own intelligence. Germans themselves
were amazed that while they shipped tanks to the border, Stalin
kept sending trains after trains of promised grain and oil
up to the hour of German attack.
> As to allowing independence for the Baltic States after the second world
> war was over, the situation was complicated in the immediate post-war
> years by the fact that most of the pro-independence forces had also
> been pro-Nazi. I certainly agree that it is way past time now to
> allow a free choice, and that the people of those countries have clearly
> chosen independence.
Well, Sir, but there is Poland. You cannot claim that the pro-independence
forces there were at the same time pro-Nazi. I think the example of Poland
very clearly shows Soviet intentions. They wanted territorial expansion
and they pursued it at the cost of first Poland and then Baltic states.
They expanded and cemented their territorial gains after the war was over.
Mikolaj Jozefowicz
Michael Rabinovich
>
>Yes I would certainly include the partition of Poland. The only
>difference between that and the Baltics and Finland is that
>there is less dispute about it. Not many deny that that the
>only alternative to the Soviet Union occupying part of Poland
>was that Nazi Germany would have taken all of it, and that
>by doing so the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews were saved
>as well as later contributing to defence against the invevitable
>Nazi attack on the Soviet Union.
Many believe that it was the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact that untied
Germany's hands for its aggression against Poland which started
the WW2. Indeeed, it is known that Hitler was trying really hard
to avoid war on two fronts (at least at that time). He knew that
England and France had a treaty with Poland and they would declare
war. So knowing that Stalin will not do the same helped a lot.
In general, I believe that in many years to go, France will remember
with pride its almost suicidal stand in Poland question.
Soviet position proved to be equally suicidal, but much less honorable!
This pact is even worse that Munich deal.
>
>
>First, I agree that by violating the independence of the Baltic
>states and the territorial integrity of Finland, the Soviet action
>contributed to many people in those countries joining the anti-Soviet
>and pro-Nazi camp. Even worse, the war with Finland was used as a basis
>for mobilization by forces in Britain and other countries who were
>still trying to arrange a combined war against the Soviet Union by
>Germany and Britain instead of what ultimately did occur.
>
>All that was an unavoidable consequence of the sheer military
>necessity for a viable defence of Leningrad.
You did not respond to the objection that Leningrad was ment to be at
the edge of the country, it was specifically built for this purpose,
and that this is not a legitimate way to gain foreign territory.
There was never any
>doubt that the Nazis would be able to use bases in the Baltic
>states and Finland and the increased support for them doing so
>was of minor importance compared with the strategic importance
>of the territory concerned. Leningrad very nearly did fall to
>the Nazi onslaught and Stalin's judgment on the importance of
>these preparations was proved correct. Leningrad would certainly have
>fallen if the Nazis had been able to put artillery in that area.
>
All the territories taken in 1939-1940 were lost during first couple
weeks. So, it's not a reason why Germans did not put artillery in
that area. By the way, I lived most of my life in Leningrad, and let
me tell you, many people believe, that Soviet aggression against
Finland in 1940 was partially responsible for the fate of Leningrad.
>Claims that "Stalin did not believe in the possibility of war
>with Germany" and that it was simple territorial expansion are
>simply absurd. Belief in such claims merely reflects the outrage
>against the Soviet Union that I have already agreed did result
>from its violation of those countries independence and territorial
>integrity.
Labelling your opponent's opinion absurd does not help the argument.
By the way I am not from one of the countries that were the the victims
of the Soviet agrression. Just the opposite, I am from Leningrad,
my dad was in the Soviet Army during the whole war, finishing in Austria,
my Mom joined the Army in 1944 as a military doctor. My grandfather
was evacuated from besieged Leningrad when he was on his latest stage
of mal-nutririon. He barely survived. But, being honest, we should
call aggression aggression!
>The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was clearly a result of
>British and French refusal to ally with the Soviet Union against
>Nazi Germany
The Molotov_Ribbentrop pact was clearly a result of Stalin's choice
between British-French and Nazis. He could have chosen an alliance
with them (and Poland), but he considered them his class enemies.
He believed that he may destroy this enemy by German hands.
After all, if you read Nazi documents and make a few word substitutions,
you'll have hard time distinguishing them from socialist phraseology.
> and a brilliant stroke to prevent the Nazi war machine
>heading east immediately as the appeasers had hoped. Anti-communists
>like Winston Churchill have had no difficulty acknowledging this.
>
>Simple common sense shows the absurdity of believing the Soviet
>Union went to war with Finland out of a desire to expand into
>10% of Finnish territory. If expansion was the goal, then having
>gained the strategically decisive 10% they could have easily
>taken the lot.
The Finnish War turned to be bloody and difficult for the USSR.
In fact, it was a grave embarrassment. The huge country could not
brake the defence of a tiny brave people for more than 6 months!
(I do not remember the exact number). Finland gained great respect
of the World. Partisan war against SU was underway. So, when the
SU had a chance to finish the war with territory gain, it took it.
The original plan was to absorb Finland. (Can any of the readers
give any references to support the above? I do not remember
where I learned it from, may be from Radio Liberty)
>The aim was obviously to ensure the defence of
>Leningrad and that in itself proves Stalin believed very much
>indeed in the possibility of war with Germany.
>
>As to allowing independence for the Baltic States after the second world
>war was over, the situation was complicated in the immediate post-war
>years by the fact that most of the pro-independence forces had also
>been pro-Nazi. I certainly agree that it is way past time now to
>allow a free choice, and that the people of those countries have clearly
>chosen independence.
>
>The fact that the Soviet Union was an aggressive imperialist superpower
>in recent years, invading Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia and threatening
>Poland etc, should not result in re-writing the history of its earlier
>years, when it led the world in standing up to fascist aggression.
>
Please refer to the United Nation's definition of aggression, and
you will definitely see that the Soviet actions in 1939-1940 are a
clear example of it.
Once again, if one country believes that it really could use a chunk
of other counrty (or the whole country for this matter) for whatever
reason, it does not make it legal to go grab it!
>One might as well believe that because the USA committed aggression in
>Vietnam etc, it too was an aggressor in world war II.
>
Irrelevant.
Michael Rabinovich
>It is insulting to thousands Polish officers, most of them reserve,
>that is doctors, engineers, lawyers etc who were all murdered
>by Soviet NKVD in Katyn and other places. Or will you also
>repeat this piece of Soviet propaganda that Katyn was done
>by Germans?
No need to repeat this piece of Soviet propaganda: one of the results
of perestroika was that the Soviet Union recognized the responsibility
for Katyn massacre and apologized to Poland.
Misha.
Nieweglowski Jacek
|> (Tony Porczyk) quotes me and writes:
|>
|> >>But history should not be rewritten. The actions taken against the
|> >>independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and against the
|> >>territorial integrity of Finland were a necessity arising from
|> >>the Nazi threat, not an act of aggression.
|> >
|> >Would you also include here a September 17, 1939 attack of SU on
|> >Poland? As you know, it was a preplanned move stated in the
|> >Ribbbentrop (sp?) Molotov pact.
|>
|> Yes I would certainly include the partition of Poland. The only
|> difference between that and the Baltics and Finland is that
|> there is less dispute about it. Not many deny that that the
|> only alternative to the Soviet Union occupying part of Poland
|> was that Nazi Germany would have taken all of it, and that
Right! So when you see somebody being mugged in the street,
you join of course the thiev. Why shall he take everything
and waste. You could use it for decent purposes. That was
your point?
|> by doing so the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews were saved
|> as well as later contributing to defence against the invevitable
|> Nazi attack on the Soviet Union.
This is the most unbelievable statement about Stalin's policy I
have ever heard. What about 1 - 2 mln people sent to Sybiria
and about 15 thousand murdered officers? Also a "tactical
decision" ?????
Your arguments about the reasons of Soviet involvement in
Hitlers "Blitzkrieg" are ridiculous. From your reasoning
I assume, that SU had no other choice, but attack Poland and
take Baltics.
However there is one point we shall agree. Stalin was considered
as Hitler's allie. Not only by despared Poles or Balts
defeated in 1939. Soviet Union was considered as such also by
France and England. This lucky part of Polish Army which ended
up in France instead of mass graves in Ukraine was used to
form Polish Army in France, of which one brigade (first) was
trained and equipped with purpose to be used against SU in
Finland. This war ended too quickly so these units were used
eventually in Norway.
|>
|> Claims that "Stalin did not believe in the possibility of war
|> with Germany" and that it was simple territorial expansion are
|> simply absurd.
|>
Well. If you take a closer look at the history of the first days
after the ooutbreak of the Soviet-German war you have strange
impression, that Soviet forces, were completely not prepared
and startled with the attack. Why?
The High Command of Soviet Army knew about the day and an hour
of the attack.
|> The fact that the Soviet Union was an aggressive imperialist superpower
|> in recent years, invading Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia and threatening
|> Poland etc, should not result in re-writing the history of its earlier
|> years, when it led the world in standing up to fascist aggression.
Yes! Here we are! Stalin was OK ...real imperialism starts with Leonid.
I really didn't know, that there are people, who still think like this.
Jacek Nieweglowski
Albert Langer
mi...@june.cs.washington.edu (Michael Rabinovich) writes:
>You did not respond to the objection that Leningrad was ment to be at
>the edge of the country, it was specifically built for this purpose,
>and that this is not a legitimate way to gain foreign territory.
I did not respond because there were so many other silly "objections"
to respond to. This time I will pick that one to respond to and at
the same time explain why I can't be bothered discussing this any
further with you or the other person carrying on about it.
Leningrad was not built by the Soviet Union "specifically for
this purpose" to gain 10% of Finland.
It was built hundreds of years earlier by Tsar Peter the Great AFTER
Russia had seized the WHOLE of Finland AND the three Baltic States
from Sweden (around 1700 I think).
It was called "St Petersburg" and was indeed built at the western
edge of the empire as a result of an intention to expand west into
Europe. For the next couple of hundred years Russian expansionist
designs on the rest of Europe have been a BIG problem.
That problem was solved only after the October Revolution, when
the Bolsheviks started LIBERATING the nations oppressed by Tsarism
and moved the capital back to Moscow to symbolize the end of that
westward expansion. Finland was granted its independence, including
that strategically important strip of land because it was inhabited
by Finns, not Russians.
>[...] my dad was in the Soviet Army during the whole war, finishing in Austria,
>my Mom joined the Army in 1944 as a military doctor. My grandfather
>was evacuated from besieged Leningrad when he was on his latest stage
>of mal-nutririon. He barely survived. But, being honest, we should
>call aggression aggression!
Perhaps your dad, Mom or grandfather would know better than to claim
that Leningrad was built on the edge of the country so that Stalin
could then seize 10% of Finland.
Perhaps they would agree with me that this was a
violation of Finland's territorial integrity but unfortunately
necessary in the difficult situation. I would be surprised if they
agreed with you that it was "aggression", but how should I know
and why should I care?
Perhaps if your dad, Mom or grandfather were here we could have
a more interesting exchange. But as we have only you, and you
have displayed your total ignorance of the simplest facts, I
am really not interested in further discussion.
Dmitry V. Volodin
>It was built hundreds of years earlier by Tsar Peter the Great AFTER
>Russia had seized the WHOLE of Finland AND the three Baltic States
>from Sweden (around 1700 I think).
Check your facts, Mr. Expert.
>That problem was solved only after the October Revolution, when
>the Bolsheviks started LIBERATING the nations oppressed by Tsarism
>and moved the capital back to Moscow to symbolize the end of that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>westward expansion. Finland was granted its independence, including
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huh?!?! Another guy for my kill file...
--
Dima
Tim Kennedy
>from 50 yrs ago! Well, sir, in 1939 and 1940 Soviets behaved
>in the territories they occupied at least as badly as Germans
>in their zone. Millions of Poles were deported in most cruel
>conditions to Siberia, of which hundred of thousands perished.
>
>forces there were at the same time pro-Nazi. I think the example of Poland
>very clearly shows Soviet intentions. They wanted territorial expansion
>and they pursued it at the cost of first Poland and then Baltic states.
>They expanded and cemented their territorial gains after the war was over.
1. Polish people collaborated in their thousands in the Final Solution.
2. The Polish Resistance didn't lift a finger to help the Warsaw Ghetto
Uprising.
3. Poland tried to conquer the Ukraine and Russia a mere twenty years
before, in 1919, merely for territorial gain. The infant Soviet
Union was on its knees at the time. So they can hardly complain
when Stalin does it back.
I am glad that the Poles are free from Soviet domination now as forty years
is long enough. I am also glad the truth is now admitted by the Soviets
as to Katyn. I think Polish people have shown themselves a mature nation.
However the truth of Poland's war guilt must not be forgotten by her
people.
Ivan Denisovich
--
"Capitalism only unites people for | Tim Kennedy <t...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
the moment, the way hyenas around | Dept 30770 BNR Europe,
a wildebeest carcass are united." | Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB,
(Oscar Wildebeest) | UK. Glory Glory Leeds United.
Albert Langer
>cmf...@csc2.anu.edu.au (Albert Langer) writes:
>
>>It was built hundreds of years earlier by Tsar Peter the Great AFTER
>>Russia had seized the WHOLE of Finland AND the three Baltic States
>>from Sweden (around 1700 I think).
>
>Check your facts, Mr. Expert.
I would not normally bother to do so when somebody just rudely says
"check your facts" instead of saying what mistake is alleged to have
been made. However since I am NOT an expert on Russian history and
Dmitry is probably more familiar with it than I am, I have checked
the facts. The facts confirm that Michael Rabinovich was completely
wrong and I was right. Here again is Michael's original claim:
vvvvvvvvvvv
Message-ID: <1991Aug28.2...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
[...] Now, as to the necessity to
defend Leningrad, remember that Leningrad was built as a fortpost
on the egde of the country. Following your logic, next step should be
to take another "strip of territory" from Finland to defend Vyborg which
is now close to the border, and so forth. So, you propose a very easy
way for countries to gain territory: build a city near the border,
and then claim that some buffer territory is needed to defend it!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The FACT is that Vyborg itself had been occupied by Russia since
the Great Northern War (1700-21) although most of Finland of
course remained Swedish until 1809. It is therefore UTTERLY
ABSURD to speak of Leningrad being positioned so as to claim
a strip for its defence and then a strip to defend Vyborg and
so forth. This was settled TWO HUNDRED YEARS before, at a time
when Tsarist Russia did not need any "excuses" for seizing
whatever territory it could seize.
"In Charles XII's reign Sweden lost its position as a great power.
During the Great Northern War Russians occupied Finland for eight
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
years (1713-21), and under the Treaty of Uuishanpuuki (Nystad) in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1721, Sweden had to cede the southern part of Finland with Viipuri
(Vyborg) as well as the Baltic provinces."
~~~~~~~~
Source is not the Bolshoi Soviet Encyclopaedia but Encylopaedia
Britannica (15th Edition), Vol 19, p176.
Construction of St Petersburg had only reached the point where
the Court could move to it as Capital in 1712 (with great
resentment from nobles and hangers on forced to live in a city
still under construction).
So my statement was PRECISELY correct. At the time St Petersberg
was still being built, Peter the Great had already occupied the
whole of Finland. By the time construction was more or less complete,
Vyborg had been formally ceded in the Treaty of Nystad (although it
was in Russian hands from early in the Great Northern War - before
the construction of St Petersberg began in 1703).
It would have been quite irrelevant if I had NOT got the dates so
PRECISELY correct. The main point was clear even if I had only
referred to the later transfer of Finland from Sweden to Russia
in 1809, but instead of asking Michael to check his facts, when
he claims the Soviet Union's motive was to expand further into Finland
rather than for the defence of Leningrad, Dmitry attacks me. Why?
I then referred to the well known fact that in establishing his
Capital at St Petersburg, Peter the Great began a policy of
westward expansion that had caused trouble for Europe until
the October Revolution.
Dmitry quotes me continuing:
>>That problem was solved only after the October Revolution, when
>>the Bolsheviks started LIBERATING the nations oppressed by Tsarism
>>and moved the capital back to Moscow to symbolize the end of that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>westward expansion. Finland was granted its independence, including
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and then comments:
>Huh?!?! Another guy for my kill file...
>
>--
>Dima
So stupid of me I suppose.
Yet here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the subject (Vol 28, p980):
"The location of the new capital symbolized the shift in the empire's
political, economic, and cultural center of gravity towards western
Europe. After two decades of war, during which the survival of Russia
seemed at times to hang in the balance, Peter emerged victorious. The
Treaty of Nystad gave him control of the Gulf of Finland and of the eastern
shore of the Baltic sea and put under his sceptre several provinces
having Western constitutions, social structures and cultural traditions...
Secure on the Baltic, Russia could now take an active part in the
diplomatic and military affairs of the comity of European states..."
As to the inclusion of those "Western" provinces:
"With his victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War (1700-21)
the Russian tsar Peter I the Great gained both Livonia and Estonia...
The other Baltic lands passed into Russian hands from 1772 to 1795,
except for a small portion of Lithuania, which was incorporated into
Prussia." (Vol 28, p1047)
As to the subsequent reversal of this westward expansion, the
independence of Finland is well known. Estonian, Latvian and
Lithuanian Soviet governments were established on November 29,
December 17 and December 15 1918 but were defeated by the
local whiteguards with British and allied support and
"were dissolved in January 1920, when Lenin decided to sign peace
treaties with the democratic governments of the Baltic states.
The treaty with Estonia was signed on February 2, 1920 that with
Lithuania on July 12, and that with Latvia on August 11,
recognizing their independence 'in perpetuity'."
If Dmitry chooses not to answer this it will not be because of not
seeing it, as I am sending a copy by email.
Tony Porczyk
>In article <1991Aug28....@novell.com> tpor...@novell.com
>(Tony Porczyk) quotes me and writes:
>>Would you also include here a September 17, 1939 attack of SU on
>>Poland? As you know, it was a preplanned move stated in the
>>Ribbbentrop (sp?) Molotov pact.
>Yes I would certainly include the partition of Poland.
>[...]
>by doing so the lives of many Poles and Polish Jews were saved
I am afraid you are sadly mistaken as to the events that took place in
Poland on and after September 17, 1939. The best expression of the
Russian "defensive" attitude was the headline in Pravda after the
attack saying "The bastard of Versaille ceases to exist" (referring to
Poland). As to saving lives, unfortunately the facts are also
different. My mother and her family lived there (Lvov). As part of
the planned extermination of Polish intellectualls her whole family
(with the exception of her brother who was an officer and was murdered
in Katyn) was taken to the extermination camp in Siberia along with
scores of other Poles. Very few returned.
There was nothing defensive about the partitioning of Poland. Stalin
at that point was in love with Hitler, and did not believe there would
ever be a conflict between Germany and SU. His move on 9/17/39 was
just a pure, preplanned agression.
Albert Langer
(Tony Porczyk) writes:
>[...] As to saving lives, unfortunately the facts are also
>different. My mother and her family lived there (Lvov). As part of
>the planned extermination of Polish intellectualls her whole family
>(with the exception of her brother who was an officer and was murdered
>in Katyn) was taken to the extermination camp in Siberia along with
>scores of other Poles. Very few returned.
I guess it is inevitable that people with your family background
and experience will view the same historical facts differently from
people with mine. Many of my relatives (Polish Jews) had their lives
saved by the same historic events that cost the lives of some of
yours.
>There was nothing defensive about the partitioning of Poland. Stalin
>at that point was in love with Hitler, and did not believe there would
>ever be a conflict between Germany and SU. His move on 9/17/39 was
>just a pure, preplanned agression.
Frankly I have no great affection for the Polish officer caste, who
took exactly this position to sabotage negotiations between the Soviet Union,
Britain and France for Soviet troops to pass through Polish territory to
ward off Nazi aggression. The end result of their gross stupidity was
the destruction of Poland and even Sikorski's Government ended
up having to sign agreements with the Soviet Union for the common
defence - but they had to sign in London instead of Warsaw.
The continuing attempts to equate Stalin and Hitler and to describe the
defensive measures taken by the Soviet Union at the time as aggression
and the pretence that Stalin did not expect war with Hitler when the
WHOLE of Soviet policy was so clearly directed to preparing for that
war (and had been since the mid-1930s) are simply the result of
continuing attempts to justify and rationalize retrospectively a policy
that has been proved bankrupt by history.
It isn't just Communists, but all serious historians who now reject
these claims (which were popular at the time when there were still
serious efforts to make the second world war a combined onslaught
against the Soviet Union, but were completely discredited when the
United Nations alliance against the axis powers was finally formed).
I've said where I stand and am not really interested in further
discussion of issues that were settled long ago. An interesting
example of the kind of nationalistic stupidities that led to
Poland's predicament is provided by the recent article from
some clown hoping to make territorial claims on the Ukraine now
that there is a crisis in the Soviet Union but who expects that
the Polish ownership of the German industrial heartlands of
Silesia etc would not be disputed in such an attempt at
reversing the results of the last world war.
Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
Nazi machine guns.
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
cmf...@csc2.anu.edu.au (Albert Langer) writes:
> In article <1991Aug30.1...@novell.com> tpor...@novell.com
> (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>
>>[...] As to saving lives, unfortunately the facts are also
>>different. My mother and her family lived there (Lvov). As part of
>>the planned extermination of Polish intellectualls her whole family
>>(with the exception of her brother who was an officer and was murdered
>>in Katyn) was taken to the extermination camp in Siberia along with
>>scores of other Poles. Very few returned.
>
> I guess it is inevitable that people with your family background
> and experience will view the same historical facts differently from
> people with mine. Many of my relatives (Polish Jews) had their lives
> saved by the same historic events that cost the lives of some of
> yours.
This sort of explains your love for communists and Stalin. The fact
that the guy murdered more people than Hitler apparently doesn't count.
>>There was nothing defensive about the partitioning of Poland. Stalin
>>at that point was in love with Hitler, and did not believe there would
>>ever be a conflict between Germany and SU. His move on 9/17/39 was
>>just a pure, preplanned agression.
>
> Frankly I have no great affection for the Polish officer caste, who
> took exactly this position to sabotage negotiations between the Soviet Union,
> Britain and France for Soviet troops to pass through Polish territory to
> ward off Nazi aggression.
Of course, when soviet troops are done with defending you, you just
ask them politely and they leave.
So Mr Langer thinks that Polish officers deserved Katyn. I hope he
realizes that this is equivalent to saying that Jews deserved Auschwitz.
> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
> Nazi machine guns.
I am afraid that Mr Langer is showing his true sympathies here.
Sympathy for the strong, brutal, winning. Losers are stupid, because
they are losers. "Nazi machine guns" as symbol of brave force.
How can anyone today, when all the Nazi attrocities are well
known, ridicule those who fought Nazis first? Those who paid
terrible price for resisting two most cruel dictators the
earth had known?
I don't think Mr Langer gives a good service to Polish Jews
either. The majority of them were loyal Polish citizens
and supported Polish state. To them the Soviet invasion
was a stab in the back of Poland and as tragic as for any
Pole. Only very small minority of Polish citizens greeted
Soviets as saviours and went on to collaborate with them.
They returned to Poland in 1944 with Soviets to install
communist terror.
Mikolaj Jozefowicz
Nieweglowski Jacek
|> (Tony Porczyk) writes:
|>
|>
|> >There was nothing defensive about the partitioning of Poland. Stalin
|> >at that point was in love with Hitler, and did not believe there would
|> >ever be a conflict between Germany and SU. His move on 9/17/39 was
|> >just a pure, preplanned agression.
|>
|> Frankly I have no great affection for the Polish officer caste, who
|> took exactly this position to sabotage negotiations between the Soviet Union,
|> Britain and France for Soviet troops to pass through Polish territory to
|> ward off Nazi aggression. The end result of their gross stupidity was
|> the destruction of Poland and even Sikorski's Government ended
|> up having to sign agreements with the Soviet Union for the common
|> defence - but they had to sign in London instead of Warsaw.
|>
|> The continuing attempts to equate Stalin and Hitler and to describe the
|> defensive measures taken by the Soviet Union at the time as aggression
|> and the pretence that Stalin did not expect war with Hitler when the
|> WHOLE of Soviet policy was so clearly directed to preparing for that
|> war (and had been since the mid-1930s) are simply the result of
Oh come on... did you mean purges in the army here? Getting rid of best
commanders? Experimenting with new Army structure (only to give it up
after couple of years)?
In fact what you write is nothing new for me. If you guys on the net
are wondering, what it used to be like in a Commie-school in history
classes, please read this gentelman carefully.
According to Commie propaganda it was the stupidity of Polish Capitalist
and Military Junta, which rejected the helpfull hand of The Father of
Nations, The Greatest Linquist and Chessplayer com. Stalin.
Well this changed but was not replaced by some other propaganda. Simply
the Soviet PEACE-SAVING-PROPOSAL was revealed after years. Yes there
are sources left after negotiations.
To be brief:
-Stalins plan proposed stationing of Soviet Army in Poland. They didn't
have yet the place to go before the outbreak of WWII, right?
-The organization, SIZE of Soviet troops as well as the date of their
withdrawal would be exclusively up to Soviet Command.
-Soviets diagreed the proposal of joint command.
Do you really believe any government loyal to its nation would
accept it???
Of course not, because the purpose of this plan was TO BE REJECTED.
Hitler also offered similar "peace plan" to Poland. He would resign
of war for exteritorial highway from Germany to East Prussia
(cutting Poland off the sea). I am awaiting your posting saying
that Hitler wanted to save peace in Europe, but stubborn
Poles ...[here enclose the rest of your last article]
|> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
|> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
|> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
|> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
|> Nazi machine guns.
I assume (although doubt), that you know , what are you talking
about. Please give us the quotation from one of such declaration.
Besides, what you say above is really rude and insulting. I strongly
recommend you to look into historical sources, The contribution
of Polish Armed Forces to WWII (ex. Resistance) was bigger than
the one of France. Compare sizes of two nations and draw some
conclusions provided you are capable of this activity.
Sincere greetings
J, Nieweglowski
P.S. Well if you mention your family roots, I have to say I am a little
stunned. Well the caste of officers you disliked so much included also
many Polish Jews.
Nieweglowski Jacek
In article <1991Sep2.1...@tcom.stc.co.uk>, t...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Tim Kennedy) writes:
|> In article <10635.2...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
|> >In article <1991Aug30.0...@newshost.anu.edu.au>,
|> >
|> >from 50 yrs ago! Well, sir, in 1939 and 1940 Soviets behaved
|> >in the territories they occupied at least as badly as Germans
|> >in their zone. Millions of Poles were deported in most cruel
|> >conditions to Siberia, of which hundred of thousands perished.
|> >
|> >Well, Sir, but there is Poland. You cannot claim that the pro-independence
|> >forces there were at the same time pro-Nazi. I think the example of Poland
|> >very clearly shows Soviet intentions. They wanted territorial expansion
|> >and they pursued it at the cost of first Poland and then Baltic states.
|> >They expanded and cemented their territorial gains after the war was over.
|>
|> 1. Polish people collaborated in their thousands in the Final Solution.
|>
Sir, however true it is (sad true), I don't think it is an appropriate
argument in this context. I would even say a faux pas. As well you could
say to survivals of Holocaust:
"...well don't complain...all in all thousands of Jews collaborated with
Nazis."
The point is that these thousands, were in fact few individuals among
millions. Black Sheeps. You have them in every nation. Among Poles,
Jews, Ukrainians, French etc.
|> 3. Poland tried to conquer the Ukraine and Russia a mere twenty years
|> before, in 1919, merely for territorial gain. The infant Soviet
|> Union was on its knees at the time. So they can hardly complain
|> when Stalin does it back.
Well it is true, but again lets add some details. TO CONQUER RUSSIA!!!
Are you serious here? Do you really think they wanted to get to
Vladivostok??? Or you consider Kiev to be russian city???
Next thing is that we should talk here about joint Polish-Ukrainian
forces. Does the name Petlura ring the bell?
The purpose was to establish federational state consisting of Poland
and Ukraina. Knowing patriotism of Ukrainian people I am sure they
would not be satisfied with this more or less polish dependend state.
They would probably fight for complete independence.
From my egocentric point of view (I am subjective here) I would
choose for them living in this state than starving to death in millions
during Great Famine or being murdered during Stalins represions.
|>
Jacek Nieweglowski
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
I replied to someone's suggestion that Soviet annexed Baltic states and
Poland as a protective measure, because pro-independence forces there
were pro-Nazi:
>>Well, Sir, but there is Poland. You cannot claim that the pro-independence
>>forces there were at the same time pro-Nazi. I think the example of Poland
>>very clearly shows Soviet intentions. They wanted territorial expansion
>>and they pursued it at the cost of first Poland and then Baltic states.
>>They expanded and cemented their territorial gains after the war was over.
To which Mr Tim Kennedy, who cannot stand that someone says something
actually positive about Poland and Polish People replied:
> 1. Polish people collaborated in their thousands in the Final Solution.
Nice wording, ah? You mean that there were a couple thousands collaborators
(unfortunately there were some) or that "Polish people collaborated"?
Also, interesting to see Nazi term "Final Solution" used for Holocaust.
The fact is, in Poland, due to historical circumstances, no group of people
collaborated with Nazis (save some degenerates and thugs). Poland had no
pro-Nazi government like France, Norway, Baltic States, Finland, Slovakia,
Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Spain, Italy and probably a couple other countries
had. No Polish resistance movement was pro-Nazi, the fact Mr Kennedy couldn't
refute, which is why he decided to spit out his hate.
> 2. The Polish Resistance didn't lift a finger to help the Warsaw Ghetto
> Uprising.
And how could they help? Of course, if Mr Kennedy was there, he would go
and fight and bravely die. Poles did not wish to commit suicide at that
time. Even the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, when Home Army was much
stronger and Germans much weaker ultimately failed (after your beloved
Soviets refused to help Polish fighters and watched from the other
side of the Wisla river).
> 3. Poland tried to conquer the Ukraine and Russia a mere twenty years
> before, in 1919, merely for territorial gain. The infant Soviet
> Union was on its knees at the time. So they can hardly complain
> when Stalin does it back.
"Poles deserved WW2" sounds rather like "Jews deserved Auschwitz".
Please save us this blatant hate, Mr Kennedy.
Perhaps it would be much better for the world and Russia if the
intervention broke the neck of this little infant Soviet Union
before it grew big enough to eat millions of people home and
abroad. Besides, it was the Soviets who invaded Poland then,
and were stopped only on Wisla river. Had Poles not stop Russians
at that time, we would have by now German Soviet Socialist Republic,
British Soviet Socialist Republic etc. This would probably be OK
with Mr Tim Kennedy but not with many people besides him.
> --
> "Capitalism only unites people for | Tim Kennedy <t...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
> the moment, the way hyenas around | Dept 30770 BNR Europe,
> a wildebeest carcass are united." | Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB,
> (Oscar Wildebeest) | UK. Glory Glory Leeds United.
Pretty soon and the only communists left will be those in W.Europe
Mikolaj Jozefowicz
Albert Langer
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu quotes me and writes:
>> [...] Many of my relatives (Polish Jews) had their lives
>> saved by the same historic events that cost the lives of some of
>> yours.
>
>This sort of explains your love for communists and Stalin. The fact
>that the guy murdered more people than Hitler apparently doesn't count.
I see no value in further discussion with you and will probably
not bother replying after this article.
>> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
>> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
>> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
>> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
>> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
>> Nazi machine guns.
>
> I am afraid that Mr Langer is showing his true sympathies here.
>Sympathy for the strong, brutal, winning. Losers are stupid, because
>they are losers. "Nazi machine guns" as symbol of brave force.
>How can anyone today, when all the Nazi attrocities are well
>known, ridicule those who fought Nazis first? Those who paid
>terrible price for resisting two most cruel dictators the
>earth had known?
The Polish officer caste did not fight the Nazis but engaged
in futile heroics which politically and militarily paved the
way for the destruction of Poland by the Nazis.
The Polish resistance and especially the resistance forces established
by the communists (who led most of the resistance throughout occupied
Europe), played a heroic role in the defeat of Nazism. They were
not "losers" and ended up governing Poland after the war (until later
removed in the "anti-Stalinist" purges).
Some supporters of the old regime also resisted under the banner
of the Sikorski's London Government, but their contribution was not
anywhere near as great. From your general attitude and tone I
doubt that you would have supported either the Communist or
anti-Communist resistance.
>[...] Only very small minority of Polish citizens greeted
>Soviets as saviours and went on to collaborate with them.
>They returned to Poland in 1944 with Soviets to install
>communist terror.
Correction. They returned to Poland when the Red Army swept
the Nazis out of Poland and all the way back to Berlin.
For you that is "communist terror". Tough - we won, the
fascists lost. Trying to rewrite history won't help you.
Albert Langer
(Nieweglowski Jacek) writes:
>To be brief:
>-Stalins plan proposed stationing of Soviet Army in Poland. They didn't
> have yet the place to go before the outbreak of WWII, right?
>
>-The organization, SIZE of Soviet troops as well as the date of their
> withdrawal would be exclusively up to Soviet Command.
>
>-Soviets diagreed the proposal of joint command.
>
>Do you really believe any government loyal to its nation would
>accept it???
If the Polish Government had wanted the Soviet Union to commit itself
to the defence of Poland against Nazi attack then OF COURSE it
would have accepted. It would also have agreed to allow passage
of Soviet troops for a joint allied defence of Czechoslovakia.
How could the Soviet Army POSSIBLY contribute to the defence
of either Poland or Czechoslovakia without entering Poland???
Who else but the Soviet side could decide what SIZE of forces they
would provide?
Who in their right mind would place their forces under the joint
command of the Polish officer caste that charges into machine
guns on horseback?
Who is going to commit themselves to war with Nazi Germany
on the basis of an allied declaration that they will jointly
defend Poland or Czechoslovakia that is subject to reversal
by the Polish Government any time it decides to change its
mind (thus leaving the Soviet Union as the obvious Nazi target)?
The Polish Government had to make up its mind whether it
wanted a United Nations alliance with the Soviet Union
committed to defending it together with Britain and France.
Its decision was "No" and it suffered the consequences.
Poland had NO possibility of defending itself against the
German blitzkrieg without Soviet help - as is proved by the
complete collapse within 2 weeks. Yet the Polish Government
refused that help. You can call this being "loyal to the nation".
I call it being very, very, very THICK.
It is this extreme anti-communist fanaticism, even in the
face of the most deadly and visible danger that explains both
the Polish Government's conduct and the ridiculous current
Usenet messages which I do not wish to bother answering further.
>Besides, what you say above is really rude and insulting. I strongly
>recommend you to look into historical sources, The contribution
>of Polish Armed Forces to WWII (ex. Resistance) was bigger than
>the one of France. Compare sizes of two nations and draw some
>conclusions provided you are capable of this activity.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am aware of the contributions
of the Polish pilots that flew with the RAAF and other free
Polish forces loyal to the London Government as well as the
much larger contributions of the resistance partisans. Their
heroism is inspiring.
My comments about the Polish officer caste were not a reference
to those who REALLY DID fight instead of leading their troops
to be butchered in horseback charges against machine guns.
As regards France, the resistance there also played a heroic
role (both the Free French led by de Gaulle and the much
larger and more important Communist led partisans). But I
have little affection for the French officer corps either,
who collapsed about as rapidly as the Polish cavalry (though
with less wasteful carnage).
Eric Silber
Mikolaj Jozefowicz noted in a recent message that in comparing Poland's
history during WW2, there is an important distinction in that Poland
did not have a collaborationist government as did Baltics, France, Norway,
Croatia etc. This suggests an important issue re: Baltics NOW.
Now that they are free to resume independent political and cultural
affairs, will they be able to face up to the supressed history of THEIR
complicity during WW2. ?
Tony Porczyk
Mr. Albert Langer replies:
>[repetetive propaganda removed]
I am very saddened by your reply. At some point I tought you were for
real. Now, faced with facts, you're telling me that you "frankly,
have no great affection" for the people who were brutally murdered by
Soviet aggressors, and then, after several other people posted factual
information for you, your reponse consists solely of the same,
outdated, communist propaganda (even Soviets don't use it anymore,
they're embarassed by its stupidity). You also make unsubstantiated
claims that "It isn't just Communists, but all serious historians" who
support your theories. I suppose those "serious hostorians" all used
to live in Moscow before the collapse of the SU (they are now all on
vacation and are unavailable for comment).
I am dissapointed because I expected a discussion of opinions based on
facts, not an exchange of slogans with a person who can't let the
facts get in the way of his political agenda.
I bid you peace,
Tony
Tony Porczyk
>The Polish officer caste did not fight the Nazis but engaged
>in futile heroics which politically and militarily paved the
>way for the destruction of Poland by the Nazis.
I simply could not believe this! Could you substantiate those filthy
communist lies?
>The Polish resistance and especially the resistance forces established
>by the communists (who led most of the resistance throughout occupied
>Europe), played a heroic role in the defeat of Nazism.
I suggest, Mr. Langer, that you read some history books instead of
spreading this baseless propaganda. The communist established
resistence was a joke compared to the Home Army, the Polish resistance
throughout the war.
>Some supporters of the old regime also resisted under the banner
>of the Sikorski's London Government, but their contribution was not
>anywhere near as great. From your general attitude and tone I
>doubt that you would have supported either the Communist or
>anti-Communist resistance.
I see you are running out of propaganda lies, so you are beginning to
insult Mr. Jozefowicz, implying that since he is not a communist
sympatizer, he is probably a Nazi.
I find your recent posts, Mr. Langer, to be filthy communist lies and
insults toward other nationalities. I am absolutely outraged that an
adult could post trash of this magnitude. How old are you, Mr. Langer?
Oleg Vishnepolsky
> In article <1991Sep1.0...@relcom.kiae.su> d...@relcom.kiae.su
> ....
> Dmitry quotes me continuing:
>
> >>That problem was solved only after the October Revolution, when
> >>the Bolsheviks started LIBERATING the nations oppressed by Tsarism
> >>and moved the capital back to Moscow to symbolize the end of that
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>westward expansion. Finland was granted its independence, including
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> and then comments:
>
> >Huh?!?! Another guy for my kill file...
> >
> >--
> >Dima
>
The capital was moved to Moscow not to symbolize anything but simply
because it was easier to defend. Inferences that you drew from
Britannica were wrong. Also, Bolsheviks did not liberate nations
oppressed by Tsarism. They were forced to let a few provinces go
because they were forced to do so by the Germans (Brest peace treaty).
That is why you got a "huh" (I think so, but can't speak for Dima).
Oleg Vishnepolsky
zanie...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca
> In article <10660.2...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
> mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu quotes me and writes:
>
>>> [...] Many of my relatives (Polish Jews) had their lives
>>> saved by the same historic events that cost the lives of some of
>>> yours.
>>
>>This sort of explains your love for communists and Stalin. The fact
>>that the guy murdered more people than Hitler apparently doesn't count.
>
> I see no value in further discussion with you and will probably
> not bother replying after this article.
>
>>> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
>>> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
>>> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
>>> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
>>> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
>>> Nazi machine guns.
YOU pretend to be sooo knowledgable about history. Don't you know that
this happened only once during the September campaign. It was a desperate
act of very brave men. Would you have guts to do that?
>>
>> I am afraid that Mr Langer is showing his true sympathies here.
>>Sympathy for the strong, brutal, winning. Losers are stupid, because
>>they are losers. "Nazi machine guns" as symbol of brave force.
>>How can anyone today, when all the Nazi attrocities are well
>>known, ridicule those who fought Nazis first? Those who paid
>>terrible price for resisting two most cruel dictators the
>>earth had known?
>
> The Polish officer caste did not fight the Nazis but engaged
> in futile heroics which politically and militarily paved the
> way for the destruction of Poland by the Nazis.
>
They fought longer then France did, you moron !!!. You are suggesting
that they were responsible for their fate. Go to hell !!
Were the Jews responsible for what happened to them ? You must be mistaken !!
> The Polish resistance and especially the resistance forces established
> by the communists (who led most of the resistance throughout occupied
^^^^^^^^^ BULLSHIT!!
> Europe), played a heroic role in the defeat of Nazism. They were
> not "losers" and ended up governing Poland after the war (until later
> removed in the "anti-Stalinist" purges).
Your true colors are coming out here! It must have broken your heart when you
heard about banning of the ComParty in USSR. But in your overzealousness
you made a good point. Poland was governed by Commies not Poles after the war.
Some of them couldn't even speak polish!!
>
> Some supporters of the old regime also resisted under the banner
> of the Sikorski's London Government, but their contribution was not
> anywhere near as great. From your general attitude and tone I
> doubt that you would have supported either the Communist or
> anti-Communist resistance.
>
And how are you measuring that?
>>[...] Only very small minority of Polish citizens greeted
>>Soviets as saviours and went on to collaborate with them.
>>They returned to Poland in 1944 with Soviets to install
>>communist terror.
>
> Correction. They returned to Poland when the Red Army swept
> the Nazis out of Poland and all the way back to Berlin.
What???? Get your facts checked!!!
>
> For you that is "communist terror". Tough - we won, the
> fascists lost. Trying to rewrite history won't help you.
If communisn in your opinion is so good (or was so good) how come
you are in Australia?
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> ...
>the Bolsheviks started LIBERATING the nations oppressed by Tsarism
ha, ha, ha, ha ... !!!
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
Jakov Snyders. phone 0135
Albert Langer
(Oleg Vishnepolsky) writes:
>The capital was moved to Moscow not to symbolize anything but simply
>because it was easier to defend. Inferences that you drew from
>Britannica were wrong.
Thank you for your polite explanation of your different opinion from
mine. It makes a pleasant change from other less civilized discussions.
I still disagree. If the adoption of St Petersberg as capital is widely
accepted as symbolizing a westward orientation then surely the move
to Moscow symbolizes a reversal of that, whether or not it also has
other reasons. I don't think there was any problem defending St Petersberg
at the time of the move, but I will have to see if I can dig up some
references.
>Also, Bolsheviks did not liberate nations
>oppressed by Tsarism. They were forced to let a few provinces go
>because they were forced to do so by the Germans (Brest peace treaty).
Well, that will always be a matter of "opinion" rather than hard "fact",
but I think it is generally recognized that the oppression of other
nationalities in the Russian empire was very severe and that their
position improved greatly after the October Revolution - both those
that remained within the Soviet Union and those that became independent
following the revolution.
Incidentally, I should be less one sided and say that the oppressed
nations also played an important role in the October revolution. The
Estonian rifles for example were at the core of the Bolshevik forces
and Latvian communists also played a disproportionate part in supporting
the October Revolution.
As for the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk I do not agree that it had
anything to do with liberating nations. It was the seizure, not liberation,
of large parts of the Ukraine by Germany and not for the benefit of
Ukrainians. There was never the slightest suggestion from the Bolshevik
Government that in signing that treaty they were liberating any nations
- they were simply admitting that they could not continue fighting
Germany (and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the Government
and rebelled in protest over this - there was also nearly a split in
the Communist Party).
On the other hand the recognition of Finnish and Baltic independence
came well after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and had nothing to do
with it.
>That is why you got a "huh" (I think so, but can't speak for Dima).
He should speak for himself (and more politely). Still, I guess he
has a better excuse than most of us at the moment if he is busy
with other matters. I don't think I would take time to argue about
historical matters if I was in Moscow at the moment :-)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> 1. Polish people collaborated in their thousands in the Final Solution.
This is false. It is true that if you take any 30+ million of people
from any part of the world there will be some thousands (perhaps more)
people without scruples. On Poland's territory, under Nazi occupation,
some of the unscrupulous people who were taking advantage of Jewish
situation were executed by Polish anti-Nazi resistance according to the
Polish law.
> 2. The Polish Resistance didn't lift a finger to help the Warsaw Ghetto
> Uprising.
This is false. The help from the Polish Resistance, modest but heroic,
was all the help that Warsaw Getto Jews got from anybody in the whole world.
Virtually all help that Polish Jews got during the WWII was from Poles.
(BTW, how these bad thousands compare with the millions of Nazis from sooo
civilized countries like Germany and Austria? Or to the KGB machinery?)
> 3. Poland tried to conquer the Ukraine and Russia a mere twenty years
> before, in 1919, merely for territorial gain. ...
This is false. Pilsudski's enlighten political vision was way ahead
of the politics of western goverments. He was ahead of his time
in his efforts to establish independent and free *democratic* countries
east of Poland -- he didn't even expect these countries to be friendly
toward Poland, leaving it up to them. If Polish leader succeeded it would
be a nicer world. But it was beyond the resources of ravaged by WWI Poland
to limit the growing military power of Moscow .
> [3. cont.] The infant Soviet ...
"infant" :-) baby, baby, poor baby -- Man, where did you learn
those sweet-milky new-speech phrases???! :-) Do you want to "nail"
some Poles? Ok, here you get your Soviet infants: Dzierzynski+Jagoda
(and don't forget the non-Poles: Lenin+Stalin).
BTW, how much older than SU, if at all, was the new Poland? :-) :-)
> [3. cont.] Union was on its knees at the time.
Do you mean still praying in churches?
In what condition, would you say, was Poland after being partitioned
for over a century by Russia, Prusia and Austria?
... after having armies of WWI fighting on her territory?
... after being forced to supply soldiers to all those armies?
But then, Poland can be knocked down, but never on its knees.
> [3. cont.] So they can hardly complain when Stalin does it back.
You forgot to add that smaller operator, Hitler. After all, before
WWII, Poland was the only country to make a military demonstration
against Hitler, in 1933. Despite the western european support for
Germany, Polish action was a full success. Not only Pilsudski but
also Hitler was smarter than Hitler's west european supporters, and Hitler
quickly gave up on his own aggresive requests and eagerly met
Polish conditions. Compare it with the continuous appeasement policy
of West toward Hitler.
> I am glad that the Poles are free from Soviet domination now as forty years
> is long enough. I am also glad the truth is now admitted by the Soviets
> as to Katyn. I think Polish people have shown themselves a mature nation.
> However the truth of Poland's war guilt must not be forgotten by her
> people.
We ALL should *search* for the truth. But who are you to jugde
an entire nation which within the span of six years has lost six
million people due to their neighbors' inhuman, degenerated politics,
and due to the insensitivity, prejudice and plain stupidity of the
so called civilized western world, the same one which has sold us
in Yalta. Poland did alright in 1920 and 1933, but don't ask too
much of a country in her external predicament.
Most every country has things to be embarrassed about. Poland's
record w.r. to minorities is not perfect. The same is true about
many countries, just ask their minorities. Keep things in *proportions*.
(Don't even compare it with tsarist Russia policies, or Nazi's in Germany,
or Soviet's.)
Now, going back to WWII, Poland is proud of its stand. And others
owe and should pay Poland respect, many do. Also Poland's foreign policy
in the 1918-1939 years deserves appreciation -- appreciation based on
historical knowledge and the *understanding* of what was happening
in those years.
Let's hope and try to help the hope for a nicer world in which free
peoples coexist peacefully.
> Ivan Denisovich
Wlodek H.
Albert Langer
>>The Polish officer caste did not fight the Nazis but engaged
>>in futile heroics which politically and militarily paved the
>>way for the destruction of Poland by the Nazis.
>
>I simply could not believe this! Could you substantiate those filthy
>communist lies?
My statement was a summary of material I had already presented showing
the consequences of the political and military positions of the Polish
Government in refusing to ally with the Soviet Union against Nazi
Germany. If you disagree it is up to you to refute what I said before.
Saying "filthy communist lies" is not a refutation and neither is
demanding that I "substantiate" such "lies". Incidentally, I doubt that
the exact words you quoted above would differ much from those to be found
in most serious history texts. Anti-communists like Churchill, Roosevelt
and de Gaulle were able to understand the necessity of an alliance with
the Soviet Union in WWII. The Polish anti-communists position has been
judged by history.
>>The Polish resistance and especially the resistance forces established
>>by the communists (who led most of the resistance throughout occupied
>>Europe), played a heroic role in the defeat of Nazism.
>
>I suggest, Mr. Langer, that you read some history books instead of
>spreading this baseless propaganda. The communist established
>resistence was a joke compared to the Home Army, the Polish resistance
>throughout the war.
Some joke. Most people have heard of the communist led partisan units
that fought behind enemy lines throughout occupied Europe. The Home
Army did indeed exist as well, but few people are even aware it ever existed
outside Polish emigre circles. Nobody seriously disputes that it was
Tito's partisans, not the chetniks that led the resistance in Yugoslavia,
that the Communist led maquis were more important than de Gaulle's Free French
resistance in France and so forth. I doubt that you could name even
ONE serious English language history book for me to read that denies my
statement that "communists led most of the resistance throughout
occupied Europe".
>>Some supporters of the old regime also resisted under the banner
>>of the Sikorski's London Government, but their contribution was not
>>anywhere near as great. From your general attitude and tone I
>>doubt that you would have supported either the Communist or
>>anti-Communist resistance.
>
>I see you are running out of propaganda lies, so you are beginning to
>insult Mr. Jozefowicz, implying that since he is not a communist
>sympatizer, he is probably a Nazi.
I don't know many people who are communist sympathizers so I certainly
do not imagine that the majority of people who are not communist sympathizers
are probably Nazis. My comments about Jozefowicz were based on what he said, not
on the fact that he is anti-communist. My impression of Jozefowics is explained
further in my next message commenting on his further statements. I would be
interested to know what is your opinion of him now that you have seen his
further statements?
>I find your recent posts, Mr. Langer, to be filthy communist lies and
>insults toward other nationalities. I am absolutely outraged that an
>adult could post trash of this magnitude. How old are you, Mr. Langer?
I have insulted no nationalities. Learn to distinguish between political
tendencies and nationalities or you will fall into the same way of
thinking as Jozefowicz. If you are not interested in debating with
me that is up to you. But if you wish to debate you will need to
present facts and arguments, not just declarations of "outrage".
Apart from your statement that the Home Army was a more important
resistance force than the communist led partisans, which is
incorrect, neither this message nor your other one contains a single
attempt at presenting either facts or arguments. I am not interested
in that kind of discussion.
Incidentally, you wrote email to me a few days ago saying you were
"quite impressed" by my postings and wondering how I could be a
communist when my views seemed to you so similar to your own libertarian
views. Neither my views nor my style of presenting them have changed
in the last few days. We are simply now discussing topics on which we
happen to disagree instead of topics on which we happen to agree.
It is not me, but you, who is displaying a response to disagreement
that is rather less than adult.
Please think seriously about the above paragraph, independently of
the rest of my message. Delay responding for a day or so and take
another look at the email you sent and think about why you sent it.
Perhaps I am unduly optimistic about human nature but I am hopeful
that even though we will certainly continue to disagree about
many things, you may choose to change the manner in which you
discuss such disagreements.
Albert Langer
>>>> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
>>>> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
>>>> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
>>>> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
>>>> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Nazi machine guns.
>
>YOU pretend to be sooo knowledgable about history. Don't you know that
>this happened only once during the September campaign. It was a desperate
>act of very brave men. Would you have guts to do that?
How many times COULD such a thing happen? It is not "brave" but insane.
In any army not led by the likes of the Polish officer caste, those
responsible for such orders would be summarily court-martialled and
shot (if they had not already been shot by their own troops). Only
those great "patriots" who wish to cover up their responsibility for
the destruction of Poland feel a need to present such actions as "heroic"
- along with the equally insane political and diplomatic policy of the
same Polish Government.
>> The Polish resistance and especially the resistance forces established
>> by the communists (who led most of the resistance throughout occupied
> ^^^^^^^^^ BULLSHIT!!
>> Europe), played a heroic role in the defeat of Nazism. They were
>> not "losers" and ended up governing Poland after the war (until later
>> removed in the "anti-Stalinist" purges).
>
>Your true colors are coming out here! It must have broken your heart when you
>heard about banning of the ComParty in USSR. But in your overzealousness
>you made a good point. Poland was governed by Commies not Poles after the war.
>Some of them couldn't even speak polish!!
My enthusiastic support for suppressing the fascist CPSU is well known
(see talk.politics.soviet) where various people are still arguing with
me claiming that it is "undemocratic" etc.
As for your statement that Poland was governed by Commies not Poles and
that some of them couldn't even speak polish, it speaks for itself.
(I see that I was wrong in assuming it was Jozefowicz speaking, but
I still see the same attitude and tone in both - more openly expressed
by Zaniewski).
In case it has conveniently escaped your memory, pre-war Poland
was inhabited not only by Poles but also millions of Polish
Jews as well as other national minorities. There were a disproportionately
large number of Polish Jews in the post-war Government because they
played a disproportionate role in the resistance and because so many
were able to flee to the Soviet Union as a result of the Molotov-Ribbontrop
pact which upsets you so much. The Polish Jews in the Government spoke Polish
well enough (and a majority of the Government were Poles, not Polish Jews).
>> [...] From your general attitude and tone I
>> doubt that you would have supported either the Communist or
>> anti-Communist resistance.
>>
>And how are you measuring that?
See above. We all know what political tendency speaks of "Commies not Poles"
and claims that "some of them couldn't even speak polish".
>>>[...] Only very small minority of Polish citizens greeted
>>>Soviets as saviours and went on to collaborate with them.
>>>They returned to Poland in 1944 with Soviets to install
>>>communist terror.
>>
>> Correction. They returned to Poland when the Red Army swept
>> the Nazis out of Poland and all the way back to Berlin.
>
>What???? Get your facts checked!!!
Of course, how foolish of me. Now that I have checked my facts
I realize of course that the Nazi occupation of Poland was
not so terrible and the arrival of the Red Army was the
worst disaster ever to befall Poland in her entire history,
especially since it brought back so many of those who
"don't even speak Polish" that the Nazis knew better how
to deal with.
>If communisn in your opinion is so good (or was so good) how come
>you are in Australia?
I am on a secret mission from Mars (you know, where the Communists
first infiltrated Russia from, before there were any Communist led
Governments on planet earth) - we have to start again somewhere.
And which planet are YOU from?
Aleksander Mazur
Albert Langer:
>Apart from your statement that the Home Army was a more important
>resistance force than the communist led partisans, which is
>incorrect, neither this message nor your other one contains a single
>attempt at presenting either facts or arguments. I am not interested
>in that kind of discussion.
As Mr. Langer stated before, he likes discussion based on facts,
so maybe we will hear what are those facts that allow him
to believe that communist led partisans in Poland were more important
than the Home Army - any numbers Mr. Langer ? And do you know
anything about the role that those communist led partisans played
in the extermination of anti-Nazi underground forces right after
so-called liberation ?
Talking about liberation - does Mr. Langer know anything about previous
liberation that Polish minority in the Soviet Union experienced
before WWII especially in the Polish autonomic districts
(Dzierzynski's district in Ukraine and Marchlewski's in Bielorussia)
that simply disappear after more than one million people were shot
and graves are being discovered right now ?
Does Mr. Langer know, that during the same time even leadership
of the Polish Communist Party was called for consultations
and simply disappeared in Moscow ?
Anxiously willing to hear some new facts
Aleksander Mazur
Nieweglowski Jacek
Mr Langer writes:
>>>>> Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
>>>>> the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
>>>>> Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
>>>>> idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
>>>> stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Nazi machine guns.
>>
>>YOU pretend to be sooo knowledgable about history. Don't you know that
>>this happened only once during the September campaign. It was a desperate
>>act of very brave men. Would you have guts to do that?
>How many times COULD such a thing happen? It is not "brave" but insane.
>In any army not led by the likes of the Polish officer caste, those
>responsible for such orders would be summarily court-martialled and
>shot (if they had not already been shot by their own troops). Only
>those great "patriots" who wish to cover up their responsibility for
>the destruction of Poland feel a need to present such actions as "heroic"
>- along with the equally insane political and diplomatic policy of the
>same Polish Government.
Sorry Mr. Langer but somehow I cannot understand your point.
Cavalry charges happened few times during the war in 1939.
They were all done by surrounded cavalry units.
I simply cannot understand what is wrong in the charges against
machine guns.
You did not say, what these soldiers should have done so I give you
the possible answers ():
A. Surrender
B. Leave horses and walk against machine guns
C. Ask Germans to leave machine guns and charge against them.
I can't think of any other solution accept one you mocked here
i.e. sudden fast attack on horse backs.
If you are consequent and consistent then you have to admit that
defense of Leningrad, Fights in Stalingrand and on Wolokolamsk
Way were from your point of view crimes and Commanders of
Soviet Army should have been trialed and shot (of course
after giving Leningrad and Stalingrad to Germans).
I suppose becuase of your emotional attitude to Poles you have
problems in distinguishing between COURAGE and INSANITY.
I claim so because the only difference I see between sacrifice
of Polish soldiers in 1939 and brave Russians years later is
that Poles lost (they were weaker, attacked from two sides).
But they all fought with equall courage and sacrifice for
their country.
Well, point is probably, that first ones fought for the
country you don't very much like..., it is bad however
that it kills your capability of logical thinking.
It is quite rude to ridicule defeated army despite its
courageous resistance. This is a simple point you cannot
understand or you don't want to believe in, because
you probably think that Poles (this officer caste) are
bunch of lazy, hard drinking fanatically nationalistic
and antisemitic jerks unable of any action.
These people who you call insane have won this war.
They fought in all allied armies. Instead of teasing
them you should think what would be if they were
not 'insane' and they haven't won.
Well, maybe as a sign of respect Nazis would let
you choose yourself a gas chamber. Think about it.
Regards
Jacek Nieweglowski
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> Tony Porczyk writes:
>>[...] As to saving lives, unfortunately the facts are also
>>different. My mother and her family lived there (Lvov). As part of
>>the planned extermination of Polish intellectuals her whole family
>>(with the exception of her brother who was an officer and was murdered
>>in Katyn) was taken to the extermination camp in Siberia along with
>>scores of other Poles. Very few returned.
>
>I guess it is inevitable that people with your family background
>and experience will view the same historical facts differently from
>people with mine.
Albert is here as wrong as one can be. Here and elsewhere
I see his writing as repulsive.
>Many of my relatives (Polish Jews) had their lives
>saved by the same historic events that cost the lives of some of
>yours.
It's not your background which makes you write all your non-sense.
Almost all my relatives were Polish Jews, the remaining few being
Soviet Jews. I, myself, was born in Ural Mountains, during WWII,
and lived my first four years in Russia and Ukraine. I have great sympathy
and sentiment for Russians and Ukrainians, for their languages, art,
science, .... I am a Russian born Polish-American Jew (an atheist).
Thus there is seemingly some similarity in our "family background".
But how unimportant it is! Unlike you, I am all the way with Tony Porczyk.
(I am telling you Albert that with a Jew like you other Jews don't need
anti-Semites.)
>Frankly I have no great affection for the Polish officer caste, who
Your fellow netter's family members were MURDERED for being Polish
officers but you Albert have "no great affection", you have no great
affection for "the Polish officer cast". Go to Italy, visit Monte
Casino, there is Polish cemetery, a part of it is Polish-Jewish, some
of them belonged to the Polish officer cast. All of them died fighting
Nazis. And don't you dare to have any affection for these Jews because
all these soldiers, including officers, are there TOGETHER.
Thus for whom do you save your affection? For those who murdered and
killed those soldiers? For Nazis, for KGB officers?
>took exactly this position to sabotage negotiations between the Soviet Union,
>Britain and France for Soviet troops to pass through Polish territory to
>ward off Nazi aggression.
I was fed these stalinistic "truths" back in Poland, in the elementary
school, when Stalin was still alive. Where did you absorb these "words
of wisdom" ? How about going to a good library or bookstore, huh, Albert?
>The end result of their gross stupidity was
As I've written above, your writing, Albert, is outright repulsive.
Do you, or did you in past, have women in your family gang raped both by
Germans and Soviets during WWII? Yes, some Polish women, some Polish
Jewish women among them, had survived such a double and multiple
experience and somehow lived after war and worked and led seemingly
a normal, even creative life (but I don't think that any of them had
a boyfriend or married after war, I don't know any such happy-ended story).
Do you Arnold consider those women "grossly stupid" ?
Can't you understand that entire country, Poland, was gang raped?
>the destruction of Poland and even Sikorski's Government ended
>up having to sign agreements with the Soviet Union for the common
>defence - but they had to sign in London instead of Warsaw.
>
>The continuing attempts to equate Stalin and Hitler and to describe the
Not at all. Hitler, despite his viciousness, didn't have a chance
to equate, in terms of sheer numbers, the crimes by Stalin.
Iosiph Visarionovitch got himself more time on his bloody hands.
Furthermore, Stalin could claim some of the Hitler's credit, since
Hitler wouldn't go far without his friend from Caucasus.
>defensive measures taken by the Soviet Union at the time as aggression
>and the pretence that Stalin did not expect war with Hitler when the
>WHOLE of Soviet policy was so clearly directed to preparing for that
>war (and had been since the mid-1930s) are simply the result of
The infamous Soviet attack on Finland showed how Soviet Union was
utterly unprepared to war. German attack on SU was for SU a disaster.
Millions more of Soviet soldiers were killed in WWII than of Germany.
But you have no respect for the dead.
Do you think that the "Molotov cocktails" were invented for fun,
'cos it got boring to destroy German tanks by artillery?
>continuing attempts to justify and rationalize retrospectively a policy
>that has been proved bankrupt by history.
>
>It isn't just Communists, but all serious historians who now reject
You mean that communist (sorry, upper case C :-) historians are serious?
You bet! You disagree with them and you're history.
Deadly serious, indeed. Fortunately no more.
> [some stuff removed; wh]
>
>Incidentally, when the Red Army entered Poland on 17 September 1939
>the Polish resistance to Nazi Germany had already collapsed and the
>Government fled from Warsaw that same day. The Polish officer caste
>idea of fighting a war was brave declarations of nationalistic
>stupidity and CAVALRY charges (on horseback, not tanks) against
>Nazi machine guns.
I'll stop now. However, below, please find an excerpt from "Heart of Europe,
A short History of Poland", by Norman Davies, published by Oxford Univ.
Press, 1987 ( (c) 1986); see p.64-65.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
**********************************************************************
Norman Davies:
The Era of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, 1939-41
The outbreak of war was made possible by a secret protocol of the Pact
of Non-Agression between the Nazi Reich and the Soviet Union, signed
in Moscow by Ribbentrop and Molotov on 23 August 1939. By this protocol,
the two contracting parties envisaged a joint attack on Poland and the
Baltic States, and the division of their territory between them.
Without the assurance of Soviet collusion, the Wermacht could not have
risked a unilateral attack on Poland. Whatever his motives at the time,
Stalin was no less responsible for the outbreak of war than Hitler.
The September Campain in Poland was fierce, but brief. Isolated from the
direct assistance of their French and British allies; surrounded on three
sides, by German forces in East Prussia and Slovakia as well as on the
western frontier; and vastly outmatched in manpower and equipment, the
Polish Army had little hope for victory. Also threatened, as it proved,
by the Soviet Red Army in the East, it had little chance even of protracted
resistance. Even so, the Polish forces performed well. They exceeded
their original objective, which was to hold the Wermacht in check for
fourteen days until France could mobilize her divisions on the Maginot
Line and launch an invasion of Rhineland. In many instances, as in fort
of Westerplate near Danzig, in the nineteen-day siege of Warsaw, or in
the rearguard battle of Kutno, they fought with skill and heroism.
Colourful stories about sabre-swinging cavalrymen charging the steal hulls
of Panzer tanks hardly do justice to the record. The Poles have inflicted
50,000 casualties on the Wermacht, and were still fighting hard when the
entry of the Russians on 17 September sealed their fate. Their performance
was certainly more credible than that of the British and French forces when
they in turn faced the German Blitzkrieg eight months later. Meanwhile,
in September, the Western Allies had not shot a single shot in Poland's
defence. The last Polish unit in the field capitulated at Kock on 6 October.
(by Norman Davies)
Albert Langer
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) writes:
> [...] Hitler, despite his viciousness, didn't have a chance
>to equate, in terms of sheer numbers, the crimes by Stalin.
Well THAT at least is relevant to soc.culture.soviet.
When I last looked in before the recent coup there was support
being expressed for General Vlasov on similar grounds.
Quite apart from the poisonous character of your accusations
against me, I would not stoop to "debate" with a person of your
views.
They do not result from ignorance about either the crimes of Hitler
or the nature of the allegations against Stalin.
They result from a an anti-Communist fanatacism so poisonous and
twisted that there is no room for debate.
There was no real point in debating the attempted re-writing of
history because ultimately those engaged in it do so from the
same irrational position that you have displayed.
Fortunately we live now in times when in most countries such views as yours can
be treated as merely an utterly tasteless joke.
Your trading on a having a Jewish ethnic background is especially
disgusting.
Many people find it difficult to believe that the current Prime Minister
of Israel, Shamir, and the previous Prime Minister, Begin, were
members of fascist political parties in Poland which advocated collaboration
with Hitler as a lesser evil than Stalin. It sounds like completely
unbelievable communist propaganda. How could anybody take such an
insane position, and especially anybody Jewish?
Begin and Shamir at least have the sense to keep quiet about their old
position.
Thank you for confirming that such things are possible.
Tony Porczyk
>In article <1991Sep3.2...@novell.com> tpor...@novell.com
>Apart from your statement that the Home Army was a more important
>resistance force than the communist led partisans, which is
>incorrect, neither this message nor your other one contains a single
>attempt at presenting either facts or arguments.
That is a plain lie. I have provided you with hard-core facts, which
you totally ignored.
>Incidentally, you wrote email to me a few days ago saying you were
>"quite impressed" by my postings
That is quite true - it was about 10 days ago. I appreciate people
being able to come out and state their beliefs for what they are, and
not being afraid of the label. Unfortunately, reading more of your
posts I have found out that none of what you post are your own
opinons, just a repeat of the same, outdated propaganda material. That
saddened me a lot.
>I am not interested in that kind of discussion.
You used that 4 times in last week with four different people. Do you
think you are scaring anyone?
miroslaw tadeusz sochanski
speaking, by revoking sentences and rehabilitating those who were sentenced
by soviet military, and civil courts for collaboration with Nazis./Chicago
Tribune 09/05/91//.
So spirit of nationalism is really on the rise, like in former E.Germany.
I do not intend to defend soviet courts, but accusation of collaboration
with Nazis was usually a true offense, that was separated from being an enemy
of the soviet people, communism, or being a land-owner/kulak/, and therefore
I would not treat that rehabilitation process lightly.
Before we know it and there will be wave of emmigration of ethnic Poles,
Russians, Jews from Lithuenia because of fear of discrimination and
persecution. As I've heard Poles already have different citizenship status,
instead of Lithuenian - "Natives" or something similar.
DO NOT take me wrong I am for independence of Baltic States, and I am not
for the revision of the borders, but I do belive that true democracy and
tolerance should be build from the beginnings, and to assure that process
Western Democracies should monitor that closely, and if needed use carrot
and stick method to influence policy makers in those countries.
Mirek
alex
>
> The continuing attempts to equate Stalin and Hitler and to describe the
> defensive measures taken by the Soviet Union at the time as aggression
> and the pretence that Stalin did not expect war with Hitler when the
> WHOLE of Soviet policy was so clearly directed to preparing for that
> war (and had been since the mid-1930s) are simply the result of
> continuing attempts to justify and rationalize retrospectively a policy
> that has been proved bankrupt by history.
>
History is not ower until we can meet people with similar views.
Sorry, but it looks like example of pure idiotism.
Aleksey Y. Romanov
Micro/ix, Inc.
Sudbury, MA
Olli Tiainen
DO NOT take me wrong I am for independence of Baltic States, and I am not
for the revision of the borders, but I do belive that true democracy and
tolerance should be build from the beginnings, and to assure that process
Western Democracies should monitor that closely, and if needed use carrot
and stick method to influence policy makers in those countries.
Isn't that a little bit contradictory? First you say you are for
independence of Baltic states, and then you want the west to tell
them how to behave.
seth.r.rosenthal
> >Mikolaj Jozefowicz noted in a recent message that in comparing Poland's
> >history during WW2, there is an important distinction in that Poland
> >did not have a collaborationist government as did Baltics, France, Norway,
> >Croatia etc. This suggests an important issue re: Baltics NOW.
> >Now that they are free to resume independent political and cultural
> >affairs, will they be able to face up to the supressed history of THEIR
> >complicity during WW2. ?
> >
> Those are very timely words, Lithuenia is dealing with this as we are
> speaking, by revoking sentences and rehabilitating those who were sentenced
> by soviet military, and civil courts for collaboration with Nazis./Chicago
> Tribune 09/05/91//.
It would have been nice if they at least first demonstrated that the
evidence presented to Soviet courts was forged or something.
> So spirit of nationalism is really on the rise, like in former E.Germany.
> I do not intend to defend soviet courts, but accusation of collaboration
> with Nazis was usually a true offense, that was separated from being an enemy
> of the soviet people, communism, or being a land-owner/kulak/, and therefore
> I would not treat that rehabilitation process lightly.
>
> Before we know it and there will be wave of emmigration of ethnic Poles,
> Russians, Jews from Lithuenia because of fear of discrimination and
> persecution. As I've heard Poles already have different citizenship status,
> instead of Lithuenian - "Natives" or something similar.
>
I just wanted to add to this that I am working with a Jewish family
from Kaunas who arrived here about 1 1/2 months ago. They speak bitterly
about the continuing anti-semitism of the Lithuanians. Even when
Russians are being cast as the oppressors and the enemies, and it
is socially unacceptable to speak Russian, there is a "special place"
place for Jews in the Lithuanian heart obviously. For those who know
Kaunas, there are currently 800 Jews left there according to this family.
I would contrast this with the calls of a Ukrainian official
for immediate recognition of Israel (On C-SPAN Wednesday) along
with maintaining close ties with the Ukrainian Jews who live in Israel,
and the stories I have read in the papers about the Moldavian government
and ordinary Moldavians asking Jews not to leave. None of the people
I have met who recently arrive from Kiev speak poorly of the attitude
towards Jews in that city for instance.
Incidentally last night on Nightline, Gorbachev and Yeltsin were interviewed
and they said that with the new democratization that all emigre's, refuseniks
etc. could come back. Any takers? -:)
Seth Rosenthal
Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.
Sergej Roytman
I assume that the installation of a puppet government wasn't implied.
It is the prerogative of the western countries to give or withold aid
as they see fit. After all, th Baltics are independant countries now,
and as such, players in the Chessgame of World Politics (or some other
appropriate metaphore).
--
_______________________________________________________________
| ft...@engin.umich.edu |
| (Sergej Roytman to carbon-based lifeforms) |
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.A. Charles Hoequist
to move it somewhere else. It should be obvious that no one's
opinions are being changed, and that A.Langer, despite repeatedly
asserting that he's not discussing it any more,
will continue to post on the topic, thus
aggravating a circle of respondents who will continue to
counterattack.
Alternatives:
1) take it to e-mail (best solution)
2) take it to POLAND-L/soc.culture.polish
3) take it to HISTORY-L/soc.history (HISTORY-L is probably the
best net destination; they go in for this sort of eternal flaming).
Or even 4) just ignore the provocation, though experience suggests
that this is unlikely.
But please move it off of the USSR groups; it isn't very relevant,
focussed as it is on Polish history in WWII, with a side helping
of personal invective.
-ceh
Eric Silber
In article <HVAISANE.9...@joyds3.joensuu.fi> hvai...@joyds3.joensuu.fi
NONSENSE OLLI! It is not a question of "telling people how to behave",
it is a question of pluralistic societies conforming to minimal standards
of law and justice. To indiscriminently pardon all nazi war criminals in
Lithuania is CATEGORICALLY UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR BY ANY CIVILIZED STANDARD.
mik...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
r...@mentat.com (Rob Pawsner) writes:
> Please note the existence of the newsgroup "soc.culture.polish".
>
> Please do not misuse "soc.culture.soviet" to carry on discussions
> which concern essentially internal Polish matters, such as the
> WWII-era politics of resisters, collaborators, Nazis, Communists,
> and Nationalists. This request includes discussions which mentioned
> the Red Army or the Soviet government five or ten message exchanges
> in the past, but which have long since drifted into exclusively
> Polish matters -- especially moral and ideological interpretations
> of domestic history.
I think the discussion about Soviet responsibility for WW2 and
generally Soviet expansionism is entirely within the scope
of soc.culture.soviet. Such a discussion must necessarily
involve some matters on the history of nations bordering
(former?) Soviet Union.
This particular discussion here about Soviet invasion of
Poland in 1939 was intentionally sidetracked by some stalinist
moron into the bushes of supposed "Polish guilt for WW2".
But I think the discussion of Soviet and Russian expansionism,
particularly in 1939 and 1944-45 entirely belongs to scs
and I must say, is very necessary. Soviets, unlike Germans,
never examined their participation in starting the WW2,
people responsible for crimes against neighboring nations
(like Katyn massacre) were never put on trial etc.
Most Soviet public still believes that the territorial grab
in 1939 was entirely justified and occupation of E.Europe
was a "liberation". Therefore I suggest that such topics
be freely discussed here.
> Rob Pawsner, Mentat Inc.
> Suite 315, 1145 Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90024
> (213) 208-2650; Fax (213) 208-3724; r...@mentat.com
Mikolaj Jozefowicz
Rick Wojcik
>1. Polish people collaborated in their thousands in the Final Solution.
So did people of most nations occupied by the Nazis. So did many Jews in the
concentration camps. The Nazis did not give people a lot of opportunities to
refuse "collaboration", as you put it. Poland was singled out by Hitler as
the prime location for the death camps, and he ordered the systematic
extermination of Polish intellectuals and leaders. It is truly amazing that
you seem to think that Poles in general were willing participants in that
nightmare.
>2. The Polish Resistance didn't lift a finger to help the Warsaw Ghetto
> Uprising.
You are wrong. But they didn't do a lot. The Polish underground did
collaborate with the Ghetto defenders, but not enough to be of much help.
Polish underground efforts to secure help from the West ran up against
antisemitism and indifference there, too. (The brilliant documentary film
Shoah has much to say about relations between Jews and the Polish
underground.)
>3. Poland tried to conquer the Ukraine and Russia a mere twenty years
> before, in 1919, merely for territorial gain. The infant Soviet
> Union was on its knees at the time. So they can hardly complain
> when Stalin does it back.
This is completely irrelevant. WW2 was two decades after this. So how does
this figure into Polish guilt for WW2? Stalin had little to do with the
Russo-Polish War. It was Trotsky's Red Army that almost made it into Warsaw
before Pilsudski's forces crushed them. Lenin sued for peace, and the
Russians, not the Poles, assimilated the Ukraine. Finally, the issue was not
just a simple matter of territorial gain. Poland had barely existed as a
nation for more than a few months, and its borders were essentially
established by military struggle. The Ukraine suffered a fate that Pilsudski
managed to stave off for Poland.
>I am glad that the Poles are free from Soviet domination now as forty years
>is long enough. I am also glad the truth is now admitted by the Soviets
>as to Katyn. I think Polish people have shown themselves a mature nation.
>However the truth of Poland's war guilt must not be forgotten by her
>people.
Thanks, Tim. I had been led astray by the historical fact that Germany and
the Soviet Union invaded Poland rather than the other way around. It's funny
how our judgment gets twisted around by the facts sometimes. ;-)
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwo...@atc.boeing.com
uucp: uw-beaver!bcsaic!rwojcik
Rob Pawsner
Please note the existence of the newsgroup "soc.culture.polish".
Please do not misuse "soc.culture.soviet" to carry on discussions
which concern essentially internal Polish matters, such as the
WWII-era politics of resisters, collaborators, Nazis, Communists,
and Nationalists. This request includes discussions which mentioned
the Red Army or the Soviet government five or ten message exchanges
in the past, but which have long since drifted into exclusively
Polish matters -- especially moral and ideological interpretations
of domestic history.
Please respect the maturity and sovereignty of the Polish people, in
both their good and bad points, by discussing essentially internal
Polish matters in the Polish newsgroup, where your readers are
guaranteed to be both interested and knowledgeable.
--
Aleksander Mazur
Rob Pawsner:
>Please respect the maturity and sovereignty of the Polish people, in
>both their good and bad points, by discussing essentially internal
>Polish matters in the Polish newsgroup, where your readers are
>guaranteed to be both interested and knowledgeable.
Well, I guess that if somebody would like to discuss Polish - Soviet
relations (eg. war of 1920) in the soc.culture.polish, could possibly
find such a post :
Please respect the maturity and sovereignty of the Soviet people, in
both their good and bad points, by discussing essentially internal
Soviet matters in the Soviet newsgroup, where your readers are
guaranteed to be both interested and knowledgeable.
Therefore I think it is better to leave the decision concerning
choice of group to the people who raise those issues - otherwise
instead of discussion on specific topics we will have arguments
which group is relevant to discuss it. As an issue
was raised that means that at least somebody was interested in
it.
Best regards,
Aleksander Mazur
Oleg Vishnepolsky
> ...
> Most Soviet public still believes that the territorial grab
> in 1939 was entirely justified and occupation of E.Europe
> was a "liberation". Therefore I suggest that such topics
> be freely discussed here.
>
I heard the following justification:
Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
(which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
In 1939, USSR merely took back those territories.
How much of this is true ?
Oleg Vishnepolsky
Jim Shanesy
>generally Soviet expansionism is entirely within the scope
>of soc.culture.soviet.
I don't. I think it _is_ within the scope of TPS-L, or whatever its INTERNET
counterpart might be. Cultural postings, not political ones, belong on this
list.
Jim
Alex Allister Shvartsman
>Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
>(which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
First of all USSR did not exist until 1922. Secondly, Poland's borders
were not at all defined when it was re-emerging as the result of WWI and
the vacuum that it created in Poland. At the same time, Ukraine was also
attempting to assert its independence when the hostilities started (as to
who invaded who is not at all an open and shut case). After the defeat of
Tuchaczewski in 1920, the Soviet-Polish border was mutually agreed upon. In
fact Poles agreed to less(!) than what the Soviets offered. The resulting
border partitioned Ukraine, but that is a different matter.
>In 1939, USSR merely took back those territories.
>How much of this is true ?
To encourage youe curiosity consider the following: Lwow/Lviv has
never belonged to the Russian Empire. A local library should be more
than able to answer your questions (sorry I have no time for more).
Alex
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> Oleg Vishnepolsky writes:
>
>>Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
>>(which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
>
>period before you publicize your nationalistic standpoint.
>
>
>J Wojdylo
So, the ">>" statement is messy; so what, big deal.
(It's a messy statement about messy
[politically] regions during messy times.)
Hey, JW, are you the fastest on the trigger down under?
But that's not your most acute problem.
(1) did you, JW, read the other man's (Oleg's) postings?
(2) did you (JW) read the one in question? or what's your secret?
Because the mentioned messy statement was not even posted by Oleg as
his view. Here is the total article minus a quote from MJ which
prompted Oleg's posting:
* I heard the following justification:
* Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
* (which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
* In 1939, USSR merely took back those territories.
* How much of this is true ?
*
* Oleg Vishnepolsky
So, now JW, you look real stupid. But I'll give you
a chance both for a rehabilitation and to beat those Russians.
This time you have to do it honestly, and it's not going to be
easy. They already have, as of this moment, 8 synonyms for
"ubornuyu" (including "ubornuyu" itself), in Russian of course.
While I've got only:
ubikacja, toaleta, kibel, wygodka, sracz, klozet, lazienka
in Polish for a total of 7. Actually, there is one more, or
rather was one more, but nobody uses it anymore.
Before WWII, one of the prime ministers of Polish goverment,
general Felicjan II Slawoj-Skladkowski was greatly
proccupied with PROGRESS. He was setting up Polish villages
with restrooms, just booths, properly armed or adorn. Actually
he was doing a right thing I'd think, but Poles were laughing
and called these restrooms slawojki.
So, at best we have a tie (but "they" :-) might come up
with new ones). I can make up two or three more
synonyms: szczalnia or sralnia or even siusialnia --
these words sound like correct Polish words but I don't think
that anybody really uses them (if I did, however, every Pole
would understand me). My Polish dictionaries are of no help
in this case, they just don't carry verbs like szczac' or srac'.
So, it's your turn JW from down under. And let the Force
(patriotic of course, not nationalistic) be with you --
show those barbarians what the western Slavs and Lithuanians
and similar :-) can do.
In the meantime let me round this post with an infinite loop:
Srebrzysty ksiezyc na niebie nie daje mi spac'
Biore gazete do reki, ide w kartofle srrrrr...
..ebrzysty ksiezyc etc.
It translates into English as follows:
Silver Moon in the sky
Does not let me sleep
I take a newspaper to my hand
And go into potatoes to sssss...
..ilver Moon etc.
Wlodek
INFIDEL
Oleg Vishnepolsky writes:
>Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
>(which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
It'd be good for you to familiarize yourself with the facts of the
INFIDEL
Here is the total article minus a quote from MJ which
>prompted Oleg's posting:
>* I heard the following justification:
>* Poland invaded USSR shortly after the revolution, and the lands in question
>* (which were part of Russia before the revolution) were annexed by Poland.
>* In 1939, USSR merely took back those territories.
>* How much of this is true ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*
>* Oleg Vishnepolsky
You mean, Oleg hesitates to reject such a trivial reading of a "messy
historical period"?
Since when have you been in the service of simpletons, Wladziu ?
jw
p.s. don't let the brevity of this reply get you down.
INFIDEL
loop" (forgive my poor poetry - I know I could never match your
eloquence)...
> Srebrzysty ksiezyc nad oparna rzeka
Nie dal byczka swietego spokoja;
Byczek wyszed na kartofle srac
i towarzyski pajaczek ugryz jego w jaja.
How sad.
It translates into English as follows: (please note the nice English,
Wladziu)...
A silvery moon upon a misty river
Gave no sweet rest to the little bull;
He went out into the potatoes to shit
and a friendly little spider bit him in the balls.
How sad.
>Wlodek
Janek
Marek T. Michalewicz
In article <1991Sep19.08...@netcom.COM>, wl...@netcom.COM (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) writes:
|> While I've got only:
|>
|> ubikacja, toaleta, kibel, wygodka, sracz, klozet, lazienka
|>
|> in Polish for a total of 7.
a conference room
Which makes the total 8 ( but it's also 9 for Russians too!?)
OK they (you?) win.
|> And go into potatoes to sssss...
|>
|> ..ilver Moon etc.
Good recursive work, and good poetry too. Keep up.
|>
|> Wlodek
Marek
--
* Dr Marek T. Michalewicz *
* Supercomputing Support Group, Division of Information Technology, CSIRO *
* 723 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia *
* *tel: +61 3 282 2621 *Fax: +61 3 282 2600 *e-mail: ma...@mel.dit.csiro.au *